Right! They're Smartter Than atheists.

[Colanth]

We already have enough light (i.e. evidence) of His obvious reality

Would you care to present some of that evidence?

I already asked.  He came back with Standard Apologisms 5 and 32.  (It would be a waste and I wouldn't accept them anyway.)  Nothing new with this one.

[Rob4you]

A question comes to mind:  why didn't any of these people try to figure out what was actually going on before yanno, skipping right to the worship part?   :-k

Yes, anything they can't explain, to them it's a miracle,  :-?  :roll: no matter what branch of Christianity they belong, they always are doing those things, I even saw a catholic nun there, and they say that they do not worship idols, HA!

Saw this on the news the other day. FUCKING IDIOTS!

Would they say the same if Muslims or Hindus claimed it as a "sign" from their god/s?

Yes, it's sad really, there are really dumb and gullible people in every part of this world, even here in Costa Rica we have people who saw Jesus in a toast or even in their coffe cup!  :shock:  :-?

[gomtuu77]

Those aren't theories, they are hypothesises. A theory requires far more evidence. Hypothesises can contradict each other, because we do not yet know which one is correct, and they are elimated by falsification. They are also not assumed to be true.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but it would seem to be that whether hypothesis or theory, if they are competing, then they are each proposing something different or not the same in order to account for or explain the same thing.  This may only be an apparent contradiction, but it nonetheless appears to be a contradiction to me.  At any rate, it's somewhat beside the point.

Name one way in which I can empirically falsify your religion then, and we'll see if we can't make it happen.

If you are seeking to falsify a religion using a microscope or by means that are strictly empirical you may have all sorts of difficulty.  This is not the only way that we come to true and valid conclusions about our world.  We often use reason and evidence to form both necessarily true conclusions and conclusions of high probability or confidence.  Is this something you recognize, or do you discount everything that is not, in some sense, directly empirical?

And what is it that you are looking to make happen?  If your only goal in a discussion is to prove something false rather than to come to true and accurate conclusions regarding its veracity, do you think a lot of people should really be tempted to engage?  What would be the point?  Would they not be justified in believing or at least suspecting that your overall goal has nothing to do with being guided by a pursuit of what is actually true but to simply come to a conclusion, proven or not, that the other person's position is false?

Do you even see the problem I'm describing?

Having said that, there are all kinds of ways to falsify Christianity or religion more generally.  Off the top of my head, you could attempt to:

1)   Prove that God(s) does not exist.
2)   Prove that Jesus Christ did not exist.
3)   Prove that the Christian Bible has no significant relationship with its autographs.
4)   Prove that objective morality doesn't exist.
5)   Prove that information can be created and built-up over time through meaningless, undirected, and natural processes.
6)   Etc...(I'm sure there are many others)

They made a whole website about all the people god killed in the bible, for all manner of silly reasons. Here, have a look:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_o ... ing_people

I don't know about you, but I cannot consider a person who is responsible for that much death anything less than a mad-man, especially if he expects you to love him while he's doing it. You cannot justify that kind of behaviour, especially given the power God is supposed to have.

As I said, this is likely untrue and has more in common with your own misconceptions and biases than with what is actually the case or is true regarding the manner.  There are several reasons that I say that.  For example, who is it that you think is insisting that the Bible should be read, in all cases, in a wooden literal sense?  The Bible is many things, and one of the things that it is, is literature.  There are places where Jesus, for example, is telling stories, which are often called parables.  They aren't necessarily meant to be taken in a literal fashion.  There are other instances where the Bible makes use of metaphor and does things like anthropomorphizes God in some way, so as to make Him or some attribute more relatable.  If you are interested in the details of this matter, there is an art & science called hermeneutics that will help you be able to interpret the sacred text, not necessarily always in a literal fashion, but in the sense that was mostly likely to have been intended by the writer.  This has been done in literature all the time, until more recent days.  Today, we prefer everyone to be able to just label any piece of literature with whatever interpretation they want, because trivializing and relativizing everything has become very 'fashionable' today.  In addition, if you aren't taking the text seriously in the first place, even if just for the sake of your investigation, you're not likely to get very far.  For example, if there is a God, He would necessarily have entirely different prerogatives than you or I would.  After all, He would be the originator and sustainer of the lives He took.  I could go on, but the overall point is made.  This kind of thing would have to be taken into account before one could make any significant judgments about whatever objectionable behavior you think you've found.  Not taking the text seriously, even if only for the investigation's or argument's sake, is going to lead you to erroneous conclusions.  That doesn't mean you need to become a theist or a Christian.  It simply means that for the sake of the investigation or argument, you have to try to put yourself in that place.  In other words, if it were true that the Christian God exists in the way that He is described and taught from their historic doctrine, how would that change my understanding and moral calculus regarding the various behaviors to which the text attests?

The fact that someone has made a website expounding upon the very misunderstandings and misconceptions you are exhibiting doesn't actually forward their case.  Unfortunately, the providers of the website's content is probably so interested in proving his own point that what may or may not be true about the topic is likely entirely missed.  That's unfortunate, but it's fairly typical of the things I've read over the years.

I'm quite sure all muslims consider you to be wrong about a lot of things god believes, and themselves to be right. I'm quite sure the feeling is mutual. I'm certain there are plenty of Christian sects, like the Mormons, who disagree with you and you with them. Each even has their own version of the sacred book to prove they are correct. It's kinda hard to figure out which copy is correct, when all of them claim to be the word of god and are mostly the same except for a bunch of rather crucial but unverifiable details.

Yes, and typically, there are good ways to differentiate between the likely truthfulness or falsehood of the groups and texts in question.  This is done in various ways that aren't strictly empirical, as in historical investigation, evidence, arguments, reasoning, etc... but it can be done.  For example, you can test the veracity of the Book of Mormon.  You can also look at their Bible and demonstrate that their conception of God doesn't comport with the picture given in their own Bible.  But yes, we do disagree, and some are far more likely to be correct in their views than others.  My own feeling is that few if any will actually take on the task of doing the things I'm talking about by actually looking for what is either true or false about these matters, as we're talking about a massive task, but it has and can be done.  Everyone has their own sets of questions that are most important to them.  Each person has their own obstacles to being able to believe the truthfulness of Christianity.  It's unfortunate though that the majority of people spend most of their time looking to throw more subterfuge in the path of their belief in order to rationalize and continue in a state of denial than they do removing the subterfuge so that they can see whether something is genuinely worthy of belief or not.  And all I'm saying here is that if a question has answers or is answerable, it is much more helpful to seek out the answer, then to find ways to intentionally avoid the answer or make an answer impossible, which is what I've found is most typical.  It's my belief that most questions regarding the basic veracity and tenets of the Christian faith have good and often intellectually satisfying answers, far more so than does materialism / naturalism.

I mean; how would I even know with which holy book to start "reading the sacred text"? There's dozens of versions of the bible alone, and then there's dozens of other religions out there with very similar stories that also claim to be sacred. How can I objectively judge that yours is better than theirs? How do you even know yours is the best? Have you read the holy books of muslims, jews, buddhists, toaists, and all other religions under the sun?

Well, you're talking with a Christian who does believe that most religions are false, so obviously my impulse would be to encourage you to take on Christianity first.  However, that choice is really up to you.  Personally, Christianity or Islam is where I would probably start, just given their sheer size and sway.  Yes, I have multiple copies of the Qur'an, and as a Christian I'm familiar with a lot of the Jewish writings.  I've studied Islam quite significantly since 2001, so I have come to some conclusions about it.  With regard to Eastern religions, I've only surveyed them, but on a very basic level, they have failed to give me any reason to affirm them even superficially.  For example, they don't take the reality of this life seriously.  Life is seen as much as an illusion as it is a reality.  And of course they are non-theistic in the western sense, which would alter reality and the status of objective morality dramatically.  And if there is one thing that I am thoroughly convinced of, it's that objective morality is an extant feature of the reality in which I live.  I don't know that you can be fully objective, since you're a human being, but I think you can attempt it.  The question you have to ask yourself, is if you're even willing to try.  Personally, the reason I know mine is the best is because I've looked into it extensively and observed its ability in my own life to pass tests for truth.  I have found that it both corresponds to the reality in which I live, and it coheres or makes sense of itself in ways that I find intellectually and spiritually satisfying.  Anyway, it's up to you.  I can certainly answer some, though not all questions.  But in most cases, I can point you in the direction of various articles, books, sections of scripture, etc... that might be helpful in a genuine search for the truth of the matters that you are genuinely curious about.

[surly74]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but it would seem to be that whether hypothesis or theory, if they are competing, then they are each proposing something different or not the same in order to account for or explain the same thing.  This may only be an apparent contradiction, but it nonetheless appears to be a contradiction to me.  At any rate, it's somewhat beside the point.

you are mistaken. you are seeing hypothesis and theory as different words with the same meaning. they aren't. Hypothesis is a proposed explanation that can be tested but hasn't yet. A theory is an explanation that has been tested. Big difference.

If you are seeking to falsify a religion using a microscope or by means that are strictly empirical you may have all sorts of difficulty.  This is not the only way that we come to true and valid conclusions about our world.  We often use reason and evidence to form both necessarily true conclusions and conclusions of high probability or confidence.  Is this something you recognize, or do you discount everything that is not, in some sense, directly empirical?

You are almost correct in this statement except then you completely ignore it and fall back on faith. Falsification comes from reason and evidence to change the theory of what has been established.

And what is it that you are looking to make happen?  If your only goal in a discussion is to prove something false rather than to come to true and accurate conclusions regarding its veracity, do you think a lot of people should really be tempted to engage?  What would be the point?  Would they not be justified in believing or at least suspecting that your overall goal has nothing to do with being guided by a pursuit of what is actually true but to simply come to a conclusion, proven or not, that the other person's position is false?

You are tying to shift the burden of proof. Each scientific theory must be falsifiable which is why people work on falsifying it but in the case of evolution they haven't been able to and that's why the theory is sound.

The point is to expand knowledge and strive to understand more. You've just said don't do that which is exactly the opposite of trying to know more.

Having said that, there are all kinds of ways to falsify Christianity or religion more generally.  Off the top of my head, you could attempt to:

1)   Prove that God(s) does not exist.
2)   Prove that Jesus Christ did not exist.
3)   Prove that the Christian Bible has no significant relationship with its autographs.
4)   Prove that objective morality doesn't exist.
5)   Prove that information can be created and built-up over time through meaningless, undirected, and natural processes.
6)   Etc...(I'm sure there are many others)

actually no, these aren't examples of ways to falsify because the first three have not been shown to be accepted as true based on evidence. You can only falisify something that has been established by theory. Again you are shifting the burden of proof when God has never been demonstrated by evidence. I don't care about objective or subjective morality so who knows (just because I don't know doesn't make your assertion true), and number five screams argument from ignorance.

As I said, this is likely untrue and has more in common with your own misconceptions and biases than with what is actually the case or is true regarding the manner.  There are several reasons that I say that.  For example, who is it that you think is insisting that the Bible should be read, in all cases, in a wooden literal sense?  The Bible is many things, and one of the things that it is, is literature.  There are places where Jesus, for example, is telling stories, which are often called parables.  They aren't necessarily meant to be taken in a literal fashion.  There are other instances where the Bible makes use of metaphor and does things like anthropomorphizes God in some way, so as to make Him or some attribute more relatable.  If you are interested in the details of this matter, there is an art & science called hermeneutics that will help you be able to interpret the sacred text, not necessarily always in a literal fashion, but in the sense that was mostly likely to have been intended by the writer.  This has been done in literature all the time, until more recent days.  Today, we prefer everyone to be able to just label any piece of literature with whatever interpretation they want, because trivializing and relativizing everything has become very 'fashionable' today.  In addition, if you aren't taking the text seriously in the first place, even if just for the sake of your investigation, you're not likely to get very far.  For example, if there is a God, He would necessarily have entirely different prerogatives than you or I would.  After all, He would be the originator and sustainer of the lives He took.  I could go on, but the overall point is made.  This kind of thing would have to be taken into account before one could make any significant judgments about whatever objectionable behavior you think you've found.  Not taking the text seriously, even if only for the investigation's or argument's sake, is going to lead you to erroneous conclusions.  That doesn't mean you need to become a theist or a Christian.  It simply means that for the sake of the investigation or argument, you have to try to put yourself in that place.  In other words, if it were true that the Christian God exists in the way that He is described and taught from their historic doctrine, how would that change my understanding and moral calculus regarding the various behaviors to which the text attests?

The fact that someone has made a website expounding upon the very misunderstandings and misconceptions you are exhibiting doesn't actually forward their case.  Unfortunately, the providers of the website's content is probably so interested in proving his own point that what may or may not be true about the topic is likely entirely missed.  That's unfortunate, but it's fairly typical of the things I've read over the years.

so believe the parts of the bible you agree with, some parts aren't to be taken literally, some are parables, some parts are at the whim of the author.

If you can't take the bible literally then why follow it at all?

I didn't quote and comment on the rest because it's the typical christian bullshit.

[Plu]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but it would seem to be that whether hypothesis or theory, if they are competing, then they are each proposing something different or not the same in order to account for or explain the same thing. This may only be an apparent contradiction, but it nonetheless appears to be a contradiction to me. At any rate, it's somewhat beside the point.

Having contradictionary statements is perfectly possible. But only one of them can be right and that's the only thing we care about. If you describe something in two ways, and those two contradict each other, at least one of them is incorrect. This is extremely important, because you cannot build on something that is wrong, as it will only produce more things that are wrong.

If you are seeking to falsify a religion using a microscope or by means that are strictly empirical you may have all sorts of difficulty. This is not the only way that we come to true and valid conclusions about our world. We often use reason and evidence to form both necessarily true conclusions and conclusions of high probability or confidence. Is this something you recognize, or do you discount everything that is not, in some sense, directly empirical?

Can you name a conclusion that we can reach that is irrefutably correct but not empirically provable? If it's not irrefutably correct, then it's not a valid conclusion and if it's not empirically provable, how can we prove that it's irrefutable? I do not see any other way to reach truth other than empirical observation. It's easy to make statements and claim truth, but to show truth requires a strictly empirical analysis.

1)   Prove that God(s) does not exist.
2)   Prove that Jesus Christ did not exist.

How can you prove that something does not exist? We've already shown that there is no physical evidence to suggest the existance of either the christian god or a supernatural jesus christ. Generally speaking, lack of evidence is enough. But how can we conclusively proof they are not real?

3)   Prove that the Christian Bible has no significant relationship with its autographs.

How are you using "autographs" here? As in the people who wrote it? We have a long list of research into who wrote and modified the bible throughout the ages, lists of contradictionary accounts, and massive amounts of claims made in the books that have been proven to not have happened. What, specifically, are you looking for as proof?

4)   Prove that objective morality doesn't exist.

How do you prove this? We already know that nothing we consider moral was at all times considered moral by all people, and we also understand that it's impossible to get a definition of moral that all human beings agree with. That seems fairly conclusive to me, so what specifically do you accept as proof that objective morality doesn't exist?

5)   Prove that information can be created and built-up over time through meaningless, undirected, and natural processes.

This question requires a clearer definition of the word 'information' to make sense. I can easily take a handful of sand, blow it into the wind, and make it land on a piece of sticky paper. That will most definately produce 'information', but I doubt that would satisfy you. What kind of information do you want the proces to create? And how do you define 'meaningless' and 'undirected'?

Most of these questions you ask as counterproof are designed by the religious to be unanswerable by definition, which makes them bad examples of "falsifiable claims". A falsifiable claim would be something like "God purged humanity in a great flood. If there was no flood, then god is not real". We could then go looking for evidence of said great flood, to see if it really happened. (It didn't.)

For example, who is it that you think is insisting that the Bible should be read, in all cases, in a wooden literal sense?

A large number of christians. Just like a large number of them do the opposite. I have no idea which side is right, because there's no way to test it.

Yes, and typically, there are good ways to differentiate between the likely truthfulness or falsehood of the groups and texts in question. This is done in various ways that aren't strictly empirical, as in historical investigation, evidence, arguments, reasoning, etc... but it can be done. For example, you can test the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

We do this with all sacred books of supposed truth. The outcome is exactly the same for all of them. It's just that believers claim that the method is correct for all books except theirs, in which case the researchers mysteriously missed the 'real' meaning, even though they perfectly managed to destroy the believability of every other book out there. The fact that you give us this method, and tell us it works, even though the same conclusions are reached for your book as every other, should at the very least make you think.

The fact that someone has made a website expounding upon the very misunderstandings and misconceptions you are exhibiting doesn't actually forward their case. Unfortunately, the providers of the website's content is probably so interested in proving his own point that what may or may not be true about the topic is likely entirely missed. That's unfortunate, but it's fairly typical of the things I've read over the years.

This. So incredibly much this. Seriously. Keep rereading what you said here. Until it sticks. It's so incredibly true that it's ridiculous you do not understand the true meaning of what you said.

Personally, the reason I know mine is the best is because I've looked into it extensively and observed its ability in my own life to pass tests for truth.

Can you name a few? Preferably repeatable ones, so that I might try? I read into the book but it does nothing to me. But if there's an experiment I can do, I see no reason not to try.

[Plu]

Small note that I missed:

And what is it that you are looking to make happen? If your only goal in a discussion is to prove something false rather than to come to true and accurate conclusions regarding its veracity, do you think a lot of people should really be tempted to engage? What would be the point? Would they not be justified in believing or at least suspecting that your overall goal has nothing to do with being guided by a pursuit of what is actually true but to simply come to a conclusion, proven or not, that the other person's position is false?

Proving someone false is fundamentally trying to come to true and accurate conclusions. It's the only way to get from multiple contradicting explanations to a single, correct explanation. In the scientific world, if you prove someone false, you get a fucking medal from the very guy you proved false, and he'll say "thank you for proving me wrong". If he doesn't, he's a quack and not a scientist.

It sometimes seems like there's just a handful of people in the world who realise that going from "Rain is Zeus pissing on us" to "I have no fucking clue where rain comes from" is an upgrade in truth-value, because you have eliminated an incorrect answer. Some people keep thinking that any answer beats no answer, but that's not true. No answer is better than a wrong answer, and that means proving someone wrong is a vital step in the pursuit of truth. You can never arrive at truth without first eliminating all the falsehoods.

Only the religious keep complaining that you shouldn't try to prove people wrong, or that multiple contradictionary answers are perfectly acceptable. But that attitude has never in the history of the world produced anything worthwhile. Only people who realise that eliminating falsehoods, embracing curiousity, saying "I don't know" instead of just giving some answer and looking for a testable answer and encouraging people to try and prove them wrong progress our understanding of reality.

[Sargon The Grape]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but it would seem to be that whether hypothesis or theory, if they are competing, then they are each proposing something different or not the same in order to account for or explain the same thing.  This may only be an apparent contradiction, but it nonetheless appears to be a contradiction to me.  At any rate, it's somewhat beside the point.

A hypothesis and a theory are at totally different ends of the scientific spectrum. One has been proposed and yet to be tested, the other has been thoroughly tested to the point where it is the currently accepted explanation. It's hardly "beside the point" to get the meaning of your terms ass-backward.

If you are seeking to falsify a religion using a microscope or by means that are strictly empirical you may have all sorts of difficulty.  This is not the only way that we come to true and valid conclusions about our world.  We often use reason and evidence to form both necessarily true conclusions and conclusions of high probability or confidence.  Is this something you recognize, or do you discount everything that is not, in some sense, directly empirical?

It never ceases to amaze me how theists can start saying something intelligent and then at the last second revert to retard-mode. Human beings on an individual level do not reach all of their conclusions on empirical evidence, yes. However, any conclusions not based upon empirical evidence cannot be considered to be conclusive explanations about how our world works, and have no place in science.

And what is it that you are looking to make happen?  If your only goal in a discussion is to prove something false rather than to come to true and accurate conclusions regarding its veracity, do you think a lot of people should really be tempted to engage?  What would be the point?  Would they not be justified in believing or at least suspecting that your overall goal has nothing to do with being guided by a pursuit of what is actually true but to simply come to a conclusion, proven or not, that the other person's position is false?

Anything that claims to be scientific must be falsifiable. "Origin of Species," for example describes exactly what you'd need to see to falsify evolution, and the moment we see any features suddenly jumping from one line to another like between different car models, evolution will indeed be falsified. To be unfalsifiable, your predictions have to be so vague as to be completely useless. Creationism claims that anything we see in the world can be predicted by "god did it." That's about as useful as a theory that says if I fire off a rocket, that rocket might go forwards, backwards, sideways, longways, shortways, blueways, x-ways, or Bob. Any explanation that cannot be falsified is completely useless by default.

Do you even see the problem I'm describing?

The only problem here is the one you've conjured up in your head.

Having said that, there are all kinds of ways to falsify Christianity or religion more generally.  Off the top of my head, you could attempt to:

I'm going to show you all the ways in which you are wrong, just for shits and giggles.

1)   Prove that God(s) does not exist.

God has never been proven to exist in the first place.

2)   Prove that Jesus Christ did not exist.

Jesus Christ has never been proven to exist in the first place.

3)   Prove that the Christian Bible has no significant relationship with its autographs.

Unnecessary. They could have a significant relationship and it would still be a work of fiction.

4)   Prove that objective morality doesn't exist.

Objective morality is no more proof of a religion than the existence of atoms. Its existence has yet to be proven in any case.

5)   Prove that information can be created and built-up over time through meaningless, undirected, and natural processes.

This statement has no meaning.

6)   Etc...(I'm sure there are many others)

"Etcetera" is not a disproof.

As I said, this is likely untrue and has more in common with your own misconceptions and biases than with what is actually the case or is true regarding the manner.  There are several reasons that I say that.  For example, who is it that you think is insisting that the Bible should be read, in all cases, in a wooden literal sense?  The Bible is many things, and one of the things that it is, is literature.  There are places where Jesus, for example, is telling stories, which are often called parables.  They aren't necessarily meant to be taken in a literal fashion.  There are other instances where the Bible makes use of metaphor and does things like anthropomorphizes God in some way, so as to make Him or some attribute more relatable.  If you are interested in the details of this matter, there is an art & science called hermeneutics that will help you be able to interpret the sacred text, not necessarily always in a literal fashion, but in the sense that was mostly likely to have been intended by the writer.  This has been done in literature all the time, until more recent days.  Today, we prefer everyone to be able to just label any piece of literature with whatever interpretation they want, because trivializing and relativizing everything has become very 'fashionable' today.  In addition, if you aren't taking the text seriously in the first place, even if just for the sake of your investigation, you're not likely to get very far.  For example, if there is a God, He would necessarily have entirely different prerogatives than you or I would.  After all, He would be the originator and sustainer of the lives He took.  I could go on, but the overall point is made.  This kind of thing would have to be taken into account before one could make any significant judgments about whatever objectionable behavior you think you've found.  Not taking the text seriously, even if only for the investigation's or argument's sake, is going to lead you to erroneous conclusions.  That doesn't mean you need to become a theist or a Christian.  It simply means that for the sake of the investigation or argument, you have to try to put yourself in that place.  In other words, if it were true that the Christian God exists in the way that He is described and taught from their historic doctrine, how would that change my understanding and moral calculus regarding the various behaviors to which the text attests?

The fact that someone has made a website expounding upon the very misunderstandings and misconceptions you are exhibiting doesn't actually forward their case.  Unfortunately, the providers of the website's content is probably so interested in proving his own point that what may or may not be true about the topic is likely entirely missed.  That's unfortunate, but it's fairly typical of the things I've read over the years.

If some of it is truth, some of it stories, and almost never specifies which is which, then the Bible is useless. Do you understand the problem, yet? If you can just arbitrarily decide that some of the contents are stories (as you seem to have done with God's mass murder spree) and which are historical (as you seem to more-or-less assume with Genesis), then I, too, can arbitrarily decide that everything it says is horse-hockey.

Yes, and typically, there are good ways to differentiate between the likely truthfulness or falsehood of the groups and texts in question.  This is done in various ways that aren't strictly empirical,

I'm gonna stop you right there.

[Solitary]

Proof of God: He says He exists to sheep herders who quote what He or His Angel Gabriel says . I mean, what more reliable proof do you need than that? Dumb heathens!  :roll:   8-)  Solitary

[ApostateLois]

Yeah, that kind of stuff always makes me sad.  But that's what happens when Christianity becomes nothing more than superstitions or people flocking together to seek signs & wonders, exactly the kind of thing warned against by Christ.

Oh yeah, that sort of thinking is condemned in the Bible...

[ Image ]

Actually, yes it is.

Not really. I can think of a few examples of people asking for a sign from God, and receiving it. Here is one you probably know:

1 Kings 18
16 So Obadiah went to meet Ahab and told him, and Ahab went to meet Elijah. 17 When he saw Elijah, he said to him, "Is that you, you troubler of Israel?"

18 "I have not made trouble for Israel," Elijah replied. "But you and your father's family have. You have abandoned the Lord's commands and have followed the Baals. 19 Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel's table."

20 So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. 21 Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him."

But the people said nothing.

22 Then Elijah said to them, "I am the only one of the Lord's prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let Baal's prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by fire—he is God."

Then all the people said, "What you say is good."

25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire." 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it.

Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. "Baal, answer us!" they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.

27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. "Shout louder!" he said. "Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened." 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

30 Then Elijah said to all the people, "Come here to me." They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the Lord, which had been torn down. 31 Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord had come, saying, "Your name shall be Israel." 32 With the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs[a] of seed. 33 He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, "Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood."

34 "Do it again," he said, and they did it again.

"Do it a third time," he ordered, and they did it the third time. 35 The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.

36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: "Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again."

38 Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.

39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, "The Lord—he is God! The Lord—he is God!"

[Solitary]

See what I mean? It has to be true because the Word is the truth as it says in Scripture. God atheists are stupid.  :rollin:  Solitary

[ApostateLois]

Why does God need a tree to shed tears?  You want tears from God?  How about rain?  Why not say raindrops are God's tears?  But aphid doo doo falling off a tree?  That's downright embarrassing!  Hey people, you wouldn't go out of your way to walk in doo doo.  For goodness sake, don't stand under it.  I wonder how the arborist feels?  Here he is explaining what's happening, and people are just ignoring him.  "No, no.  Those are God's tears.  God is crying because he's sad."  Doesn't anyone concern themselves with why God is sad?  It seems like it could be really important, but no one seems to care about that part  It's a nice display of belief, but it seems like just half of a thought, like part of their brains are missing.

Part of their brain IS missing: the part that says, "Hey, maybe it's just insect excrement or tree sap or something. Maybe I should try to find out what the natural explanation is before jumping to the conclusion that God did it."

[the_antithesis]

It is god crying because of how stupid they are.

[Sargon The Grape]

Why does God need a tree to shed tears?

[youtube:1twl9gwy]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYW_lPlekiQ[/youtube:1twl9gwy]

[ApostateLois]

And what is it that you are looking to make happen? If your only goal in a discussion is to prove something false rather than to come to true and accurate conclusions regarding its veracity, do you think a lot of people should really be tempted to engage?

Every scientific theory must contain within itself some means of showing the theory to be false. For example, the theory of evolution predicts that certain types of fossils will be found in certain rock strata. If we were to find human fossils in the same strata as a triceratops, evolution would be proven false. If were to find more complex creatures, such as mammals and birds, in older strata where only primitive cyanobacteria lived, evolution would be proven false.

Now, if God really exists, and he can do all the things that Christians claim he can do, then we would expect to see evidence of this. Let's take prayer as an example. We would expect that you could go into a cancer hospital, pray for dying child to be made well and whole, and this would happen. We would expect that, when you pray for peace on Earth, this would actually come about. Instead, what we see is the very opposite of these things. When a sick person is prayed for, they remain sick. When you ask God to grant the world peace, wars and fighting continue unabated . When you ask God to protect you from harm, your house is no less likely to be broken into than if you'd prayed to a brick. In other words, the fact that nothing happens when you pray, falsifies the idea that God answers prayer. And the same can be said of any other magical powers that God is claimed to possess, or to give to those who worship him.

[ApostateLois]

Well, that's the problem with asking individuals who are all over the place in terms of their devotion & knowledge levels. You're better off dealing with a very few people you feel exhibit a depth of knowledge, and focusing on the sacred text itself, the example of the religion's founder(s), and the mainstream developed historic doctrine of the religion in question.

You don't seem to get that ALL Christians are all over the place in terms of everything--devotion, knowledge, beliefs, morals, behavior, you name it--and yet they all use the same holy book to prove that they are right. What, exactly, is mainstream nowadays? Why should we care if it is mainstream or not? That implies that the biggest denomination, the one that is the most well-known and has the most followers, must be right because it has more believers. Just because a lot of people believe something, does not make it right. How do I know that some little-known offshoot of Christianity isn't the one that really does have the low-down on God? There are thousands and thousands of denominations, and more than 2 billion Christians. Which of them do you propose I deal with when trying to figure out this God thing? Hey, maybe NONE of them are right, and it's some other religion I should turn to! Ever think about that?

Frankly, you are just one of 2.5 billion or so people telling me to just take their word for it that there are unicorns living in the woods behind your house. We can't see them or hear them or touch them, but they MUST be there, because you guys BELIEVE they are there!