Suffering is only suffering when viewed from the perspective of relativity -- from the absolute, where our true nature lies, it's merely an experience with no judgement.

Why does believing garner such importance?

Naw man, there was an error in translation.* Everyone's their own god, even the Bible said so!

Besides, everyone knows the Flying Spaghetti Monster gave you free will.

*You can't believe the Bible's exact words, because there may be errors in translation or intentional revisions of the original meaning.

Is god so petty and insecure that he will only "save" those that believe in him? I think not. I think the religions mistake faith and belief with UNSTANDING -- when you understand that YOU ARE IN FACT GOD then you are saved/free.

"Take for exampl, leprechauns. I don't believe they exist because there is no evidence (there is however for God)"
Wait a second. There are people who swear to having seen and talked to leprichauns (just as there are for God - and there is zero non-eye-witness evidence for either)... and yet, leprichauns are much less of a fantastical being than an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. So, if I'm to approach the God question as Smiley suggests (quite reasonably) - as a problem in Bayesian logic... then I must conclude that leprichauns are more likely than God. Seriously - I now believe this to be the case.

@CM:

Well, SINCE you brought up the Casey Anthony case and my response, I think I should be as kind as to remind you of your response and the response of others who, as I conceded, were CORRECT in your logic:

Just because there is circumstantial evidence for her being the murderer and I and many others think she is does NOT make her the murderer.

LIKEWISE:

Just because there is some circumstantial evidence via old texts and personal experiences and the like DOES NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD.

And, as the burden of proof is on you, and there is no proof...

If the facts don't fit, you must acquit.

I, therefore, acquit God of all charges of existence.

Case dismissed.

now hearing the next case, Ayn Rand vs. Common Sense...

Things take on a very different light when you know that you're an all powerful being who chose to enter a dense relative world of limitation so as to experience life, in all it's forms and situations.

You choose to believe that a god exists without proof, without reason. While it's possible to base a philosophy off of abstracts, such as the enlightenment and its inherent rights to life, you cannot base a philosophy on an abstract concept saying "You can and cannot do these things". God is a primary abstract, the concept of sin is an abstract based off the presumption of God. If there is no reason to God then sin has no basis.
Religion was a method of governance, a way of controlling behavior and setting up a power system to administer justice. Christ dismantled that system in his teachings, taking the power away from the church and giving it to the people. However, due to the nature of religion and how people with power tend to use it to maintain power, Jesus' Christianity was adopted by those seeking power and set up as yet another authority rather than what Jesus intended.

Which god?

@AWB: "Nice distinction. Now tell me what the difference is." Imagine someone long jumping across the atlantic ocean. You can imagine it, therefore it is logically possible. But no Human Being can do it. So it is physically impossible. My definition of logically impossible: Impossible to even imagine. My definition of physically impossible: Something that breaks a law of physics. Undertsand the difference now?

"If not even God can stop evil, then who are we to fight it instead of worship it?"
You actually have a good argument here, but only because I have been making statements without thinking them through completely. I will have to revise the statement: There is only one logically possible way God can stop evil, and that requires letting it happen for now. God will, however, eventually stop it, as descriped (somewhat symbolically) in the Book of Revelations.

@rayNimagi: "Why can't God just make the mugger simply walk away?" That is a violation of free will, which is evil.

"Was there a guy named Jesus who lived around 1 CE? Most likely. Did he defy the laws of physics? Most likely not." I'm gonna use a separate post to decribe some of the evidence of God existing, which is supported by the fact that Jesus did in fact exist (as you will see). But I am going to take a little break before I do that, because I have to go somewhere.

@obi: You completely ignored my point. I agreed with the majority in your Casey Anthony debate that she should have been acquitted because it was not proved she was guilty. However, I like most people, still believe she was guilty. And I also say that while the evidence for God's existence would not stand in a court of law, I still believe that He exists. I am in no way saying that I KNOW God exists, much like I am in no way saying I KNOW Casey Anthony is guilty. What part of that don't you understand?

""Why can't God just make the mugger simply walk away?" That is a violation of free will, which is evil."
But why can't God inspire the victim to defend himself with peaceful negotiation, or make the mugger miss with his knife or gun?

@CM, then why do you believe that an omnipotent God exists?

Perhaps a more interesting question: If God does exist, then why is he God and not Allah? Why is Christianity the 'true faith' and not another religion?

@CM:

Your question was "Does God exist?" and, to say it again...

The burden of PROOF is on you, as you say you believe he DOES.

No amount of belief makes something a fact, so you ahve yet to prove your point...

You even in your intro say you'll let an atheist go first, so you clearly wish to refute or stand in opposition to an anti-God or no-God point of view...

So, if that's your position, again--prove it.

And if you're saying you can't, that you can only believe in God's existence...

Why are we discussing this?

If you're not taking up one point of view and trying to prove or otherwise support it, why are you starting this?

"@AWB: "*Change water into wine
*Heal a royal official's son by saying he's going to be fine
*Cast demons out of possessed people
*Heal a fever by helping someone sit up
*Cause abnormal numbers of fish to be caught by telling people to go fishing
*Healing leprosy by touch
*Healing a centurion's servant without even going in the house
*Healing paralysis with the power of forgiveness
*Healing arthritis by stretching (debatable)
*Raise a widow's son from the dead
*Stopping storms by telling them to chill out"

Uh, God can do all those things, because while some are (seemingly) physically impossible, they are not logically impossible."


What. they are logically impossible, or, at least, just as logically impossible as striking down Hitler before he became the leader of Nazi Germany. Your god had *no* problems bruning whole cities to the ground because the violated what he wanted them to do. Therefore, i say that God has no problem in interefering in "free-will" and that god does not exist as an omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent god that is benevolent, because in the past he has arbitrarily chosen to stop "evil" as he views it. Either that or mass murder is not considered "evil" to your god, seeing as he himself is a mass murderer.

@rayNimagi: "But why can't God inspire the victim to defend himself with peaceful negotiation" The mugger may still mug him, God can't control the Mugger's reaction to peaceful negotiation.
"or make the mugger miss with his knife or gun?" This is where it gets complicated. God would be interfering with what the mugger wanted to do, and despite the fact that what the mugger wanted to do is evil. Now, in the case of God's final plan to stop evil, that in itself is not evil because it's not stopping any particular evil act, but it's stopping evil in general.

In addition this is not a debate. This is people logically replying to you and you replying with "Well I don't believe that". Please just go away.

@obiwan: are you really that fucking dense. I'm gonna have to do a two part post to get my point through. Answer me this: do you think that Casey Anthony killed her daughter, in your opinion, even though it wasn't proven?

Yes, I DO.

However, again.....

MY BELIEF SHE KILLED HER DAUGHTER DOESN'T MAKE IT SO.

YOUR BELIEF IN GOD DOESN'T MAKE *HIM* SO, EITHER.

what point is there to an omnipotent god that never ever exercises "his" omnipotence?

second question... if a key requirement for good is that it let evil happen, then what exactly would be the evil thing to do? It would be evil to stop evil and good to let it happen?

next... why "inspire" us through this single obscure (at the time... and certainly poorly documented) appearance of God in the flesh - and then not come again anywhere else? Why so mysterious and random and indirect about the whole thing? Why not just be out there visible for all and make the argument plain and clear so that we can all exercise our free will to love or not love him, etc. Why make it like a 2000 year (and counting) version of 20 (million) questions and hide and seek (or Marco Polo where God has gotten out of the pool)? We've been put in double secret probation. And if the point was to be obscure, then why show up and be recorded at all. Why not truly test us by leaving us to believe with zero "evidence"? Wouldn't that be the bigger leap of faith that God so loves us to make? I mean, can we really be loving him if he told us that he wants to be loved? Shouldn't we be loving him without being asked *at all*?

@Kingdroid: I'm goving logical replies along with my "well I don't believe that"s And you guys in turn are giving me "well I don't believe that"s along with your logical replies. We're doing the exact same thing, and you know it.

To have it be factually PROVEN, or "true" in a manner which we can hold up to peer scrutiny...

EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED, AS IS LOGICAL RATIONALE.

SUPPLY THE EVIDENCE AND LOGIC, CM, AS YOU STARTED THIS DEBATE ADN TOOK THE "GOD EXISTS" SIDE.

@CM, I will give you one ounce of credibility if you admit that the Bible is complete bullshit. Every single one of your arguments has pretty much gone against what both testaments of the Bible have claimed in regards to what your god can and cannot do. Will and will not do.

@Obi: When have I EVER said that my belief in God makes it so? I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT!!!!! I have admitted from the very beginning that it is possible that God doesn't exist. Why can't you get that through your head?

@Cm, no, you;re the only one who thinks that, You have given us bullshit responses during this entire thread, have changed the subject to better fit what you are saying, and have contradicted yourself multiple times.

Stop wasting our time.

Does the first commandment imply that other gods exist?

Conservative Man, we anxiously await your supposed proof.

@Kingdroid: God in the Old Testament is different from God in the New Testament. (well, it's the same God, but he acts differently) God, as the creator of the Universe, would obviously determine right and wrong. Everything God did in the Old Testament was just making a huge point that would set up the New Testament. Which is why God did things in the Old Testament that could now be considered sinful. Now, talking about the New Testament that goes against what I said God can and cannot do. If you think there is, tell me where.

CM; Please tell me which god we are supposed to be discussing.