What would it take to prove the existence of a God?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Hey FreeT, what's the deal? You made your post-maniacal quota and now you're not going to answer? LOL

 

I didn't see this one. You think I'd miss an opportunity like this on purpose? lol

[IrishEyes]

oooooh, i can hardly wait... rotf...

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

From Freethinker:

 

The same approach is used by the same group to create the same emotional knee jerk response in many other areas. Established medical termonology such as "Intact Dilation and Extraction", which does not stir the masses to action, becomes "Partial Birth Abortion" so they can benefit from the money suckers are willing to throw when they ignore facts and react to intentional emotional manipulation.

 

Ok, FreeT, please explain the above. i'm not quite sure I follow what you are trying to get at here. And no, I'm really not looking for a fight ont his one, I'm just trying to understand what you mean.

First, this was included as an additional example to prove another point. So this is deviating from that discussion. But I am known as a deviant, so deviating is not a problem for me.

Are you saying that an 'intact dilation and extraction' is ok, and that 'they' just started using the term 'partial birth abortion' in order to intentionally emotionally manipulate people for money? And that the outrage over abortion is just a knee-jerk reaction due to some word twisting?

No what I said was fairly clear. There exists well established and agreed termonlogy to describe specific medical proceedures. One very well known such term and proceedure is "Intact Dilation and Extraction". To make it easier to discuss, it is known as "D&X". You can find it all of the net in medical articles and encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

 

Thus in an INTELLECTUALLY HONEST discussion, when people that are not ignorant of medical processes, they will call it D&X. If they are IGNORANT of medical processes, to the extent that they do not even know the commonly used termonlogy, then what are they doing trying to force others, people called DOCTORS, to not be able to use the best medical processdure for the specific need?

 

Before they were outlawed they represented less than 0.2% of abortions.

 

Now how could someone get a group of people that know NOTHING about medical procedures, all worked up about something that is used a few hundred times a year, ONLY when demanding issues require it? By INVENTING a name that has nothing of value in it except to stir an emotional knee jerk reaction. To move the discussion outside of intellectually honest, rational discussion. This proceedure was used to save the lives of women when specific late term fetal disorders threatened the lives of these women. Because it was considered the BEST proceedure by DOCTORS, rather than MINISTERS.

 

Now thanks to millions of dollars and massive amounts of energy, the Anti-Choicers have succeeded in passing an unConstitutional bill which will stop a proceedure used less than 0.2% of the time and can be replaced with other, less reliable, proceedures.

Can you clarify your position regarding the above referenced staement?

Perhaps more background of how the Religiouis Right was sucker punched by the Catholic Church to change their stance on Womens Choice and back the Pope.

 

Have you ever heard of the Pastorial Plan?

[Freethinker]

The Catholic Church has a major dilema with Birth Control, it is ripping Papal Infallability apart. In 1964 Pope Paul VI created the Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control. It met for 2 years and had two groups, 64 lay people in one and 15 Clerics in the other, including our current Pope while still a Cardinal in Poland. They all agreed that the Church could not change it's stance without putting Papal Infallability in trouble. In fact our current Pope, while in the Commission wrote a report that stated:

 

"If it should be determined that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches... It should likewise have to be admitted that for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error.

 

This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding under pain of eternal damnation...."

 

But the Church decided that even though the commission voted overwhelmingly that the church had to change it's stance regadless of Papal Infallability being destroyed because it can no longer be morally justified.

 

Instead the Church came up with the "Pastoral Plan".

 

Up to this point it was only the Catholic Church that was fighting abortion, much less simpler forms of contraception. The Pastoral Plan outlined a plan to create a loud and diverse religious group and hide the fact that it was Catholic based. Empty claim?

 

In 1980, Fed judge John Dooling ruling on a challenge to the Hyde Amendment, which stopped Medicade funding of Abortions, made it clear that it was a Catholic Church almost exclusively fight to stop birth control methods. After a year of research, Judge Dooling, a practicing Catholic, stated that the anti-Abortion movement was essentially a Roman Catholic effort with a little non-Catholic window dressing. He even referenced the Pastoral Plan.

 

The Plan laid out the process which created the Moral Majority and later the Christian Coalition. Richard A Viguerie, a Catholic, was a major player in the creation of the Moral Majority. He also acted as it's fund raiser and was the person that made it a finacial success. Paul Weyrich, a Catholic, claims credit for picking the name and both of them chose Jerry Falwell.

 

Then they developed the Christian Coalition. Even before a Catholic branch of it called the "Catholic Alliance" was formed, all 5 staffers of the CC's DC office were Catholics. The Catholic Alliance was most recently led by Keith Fournier, a founding partner of the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal advocacy group connected to Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson. Robertson had a seat of honor at the Mass during Pope John Paul II's 10/7/95 visit to New York. He also marched at the head of an ecumenical procession to the papal altar. He said his meeting with the Pontiff was "very warm" and, through a personal letter hand-delivered to the pope, pledged to work for Christian unity between evangelicals and Catholics. The New York Times reported Robertson saying: "We all admire the Holy Father tremendously. We all want to build bridges with the Catholic Church." In his 1993 book, The Turning Tide, Robertson said "Pope John Paul II stands like a rock against all opposition in his clear enunciation of the foundational principles of the Christian faith."

 

The Pastoral Plan is working, the Catholic Church is creating a Protestant front which is allowing it to take over the Republican Party.

 

http://population-security.org/16-CH8.html

 

Dateline: February 1, 2001

Unaware that reporters were listening, President Bush told Catholic leaders yesterday that his new program to give tax money to religious groups will help them promote opposition to abortion.

[erKa]

Nature, Congress of USA, Lincoln, Bush, Pope, Catholic Church, abortion & blah blah...Where is your Goddess? I don't see.

[Freethinker]

If you mean MY goddess, We have been together for over 6 years and I worship our every moment together.

[wisdumn]

check this out unless you're "chicken".( that's a term for scared for those here who need a clear definition of terms we can all agree on).

http://www.doesgodexist.org

 

you're more than welcome to read all of the chapters but in particular check out the chapter entitled:

"Why I left atheism"

if you need to read it slowly

[wisdumn]

i would love to hear your replies

[Uncle Martin]

These brand new balls of brass knocking your knees could have only come from a recent "revival". I am so proud of you my child, I will bless you also,....when I feel like it. Or maybe I'll condemn you to an eternity in hell, you know how I can be.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

check this out unless you're "chicken".( that's a term for scared for those here who need a clear definition of terms we can all agree on).  

http://www.doesgodexist.org

 

you're more than welcome to read all of the chapters but in particular check out the chapter entitled:

                                                    "Why I left atheism"

if you need to read it slowly

 

Please read our FAQ about posting links without further explanation (like what your relationship with that site is and why it is relevant to our discussion).

 

And tone down the patronizing language.

 

Tormod

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

i would love to hear your replies

 

Here is my comment: Why is it that people who "used to be atheists" now cannot understand why others can be, and why do they have to realize what a stupid life they used to live, whereas now they are so happy and complacent?

 

I read your text and all I could think was "this guy uses too much space to write what he could have summed up thus:"

 

Matthew 12:30 says, "He that is not with me is against me", so I chose to follow Matthew's God.

 

The Matthew quote sounds like a Bush quote to me. Only he said "us" instead of "me".

[wisdumn]

very sorry tormod for including the web site, i must admit that i didn't remember in the faq that we couldn't post from other sites, i remember just yesterday though seeing the picture on the miracles discussion that appears to be a link to "another site" and honestly, the site and specific chapter that i referred people to was just too long to post here so i thought i best to refer people to it and let them read it themselves. as far as being atheist, i personally never was atheist, i admit i didn't always believe the way i do now but i always believed in a higher power, it was just too apparent to me personally. the link was for people who are atheist to read about someone else who used to be and why that person had changed. i'm not sorry for saying i feel stupid for the things i used to believe and think because that's just honest. may be you're right, i shouldn't call anybody names, better yet i don't think i did, i said " unless you are", i do believe though that i have seen some pretty cheeky things that are way further outside the margin than i went. as far as the length of my posts, i say it how i need to, by the way did you enjoy the sight?

[wisdumn]

by the way, is freeT's post at the top of page 20 includes a link to a site, is that a hypography link?

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

very sorry tormod for including the web site, i must admit that i didn't remember in the faq that we couldn't post from other sites

 

It is perfectly okay to post links as long as they are a) in context and B) follow the rules in the FAQ.

 

Freethinker's link is the source of the material he publishes, so it is posted for reference. You'd have spotted that if you clicked on it.

 

Although technically it would be better if FT added "Source:" in front of the link, but since he made it pretty obvious that he was posting material from elsewhere then that is okay.

 

Also, it is NOT okay to post anything from another site in ANY other case than when it is used for quoting. We had a problem a while back where people would post entire (copyrighted) articles without even crediting the owners.

 

So the issue is twofold:

 

1) If you want to post links, always explain why it is posted, or post it as reference to something you write about. Do not post the link without any comment.

 

2) Do not post anything from other sites without permission and credit.

 

Simple, eh?

[wisdumn]

i see many guests browsing, come join the fun, just register,read the FAQ, and start posting, it's lotsa' fun

[Razeroth]

A better question, I think, would be: What whould it take to disprove God?

Science would need an experiment that represented a Universe and

A. was not created

B. is not maintained

C. is not observed

 

If this experimental universe is at any time is observed it will emediatly prove there is a God, if it is ever maintained a God is proven, and above all if this experiment doesn't spontaniously emerge from nothing, God is fundamentaly proven. So all Science has to do is wait for this unseen, unheard, uncared for, and forever unknown universe to never show itself and it can go on saying theres no proof of God.

 

There is however more proof of God then there is proof that thier is not one. People who believe in God have had actual Person Expieriences that constitute proof on a Personal level. People who do not believe mererly go on a Lack of Personal Expierence and Lack of Personal Proof. That means that there are for God thousands apon millions of personal witnesses, and against God not a single witness or drop of personal experience. For how can one witness what isn't there or experience what doesn't exist? How many witnesses constituites evidence, and how much evidence constituites a proof? Can anything truely be proven indesputably?

 

If I awoke one morning and described to you a dream I had, would you call me liar and demand solid physical evidence that such a dream had actually occured? No, you believe that I had indeed had such a drea, no matter how unbelievable it seemed, on the standpoint that I had no reason to lie and that we all have dreams. Why do we demand proof of things that can not be proven? How do you proove to your wife that you love her? How do you prove to your children that they can trust you? How do you prove that your thoughts are your own?

 

God can not be the subject of experiment as he is an inteligent being. He is more then just physical forces that can be tried again and again. If God became subject to experiment he would not be God. For God tobe all powerful he would needs be forever free from our judgement and scutiny. For the creature can not sit in judgement apon the Creator, the darkness can not master the light.

 

God can not be disproven, to observe such a proof would prove him. Likewise he can not allow himself to be universaly proven, such would undermine the faith of so many that found him without proof, and would jeoperdize our agency in that we could no longer chose not to believe.

 

So chose who you will love, Truth or Lies.

And if you love Truth, speak no more of lies.

And if you love Lies, speak no more of God.

[C1ay]

There is however more proof of God then there is proof that thier is not one.

 

No. There is no proof that there is a God. If you disagree please provide some testable proof.