What if Jesus was just a philosopher? page 3

79 posts

Flag Post

simple belief means nothing; knowledge is what truly matters.

I can always rephrase into me saying that I know that Jesus is not a philosopher.

Did not know that your knowledge of the English language hinged on your religious beliefs.

What does the English language have to do with anything? No entiendo man’

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

simple belief means nothing; knowledge is what truly matters.

I can always rephrase into me saying that I know that Jesus is not a philosopher.

but Jesus was a philosopher. Whether he had powers or not does not matter. His ideals were philsopical, and later called “Gospel Non-Violence”. I think you meant to say, “that I know that Jesus was not JUST a philosopher, but also the son of God”

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by hangman95:
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:
Originally posted by GentleGyroGinger:

He may have been smart enough to have made up a being of a higher plane of existence to judge us. Humans would feel underpowered and do what the preachings told them to do.

This is just a theory.

discuss

If that was true then everything I believe in would be a lie.

simple belief means nothing; knowledge is what truly matters.

Depends.
If you are talking about objective knowledge then yes; believing in something is not enough.
But beliefs are a big player in behaviour. Whether we like it or not, not all of our actions are based on objective knowledge. We are driven by many things that definitely fall under categories such as beliefs, stereotypes etc.



Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

I can always rephrase into me saying that I know that Jesus is not a philosopher.

No, you can’t. You would have to prove that first.
Have fun doing that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

I can always rephrase into me saying that I know that Jesus is not a philosopher.

Well, obviously.

Out of curiosity, just how do you know that?

What does the English language have to do with anything? No entiendo man’

You said “everything I know would be a lie,” so I just assumed that you knew the English language, my mistake.

 
Flag Post

Out of curiosity, just how do you know that?

Well, its the experiences I had and still do have.

You said “everything I know would be a lie,” so I just assumed that you knew the English language, my mistake.

I still don’t understand.

Depends.
If you are talking about objective knowledge then yes; believing in something is not enough.
But beliefs are a big player in behaviour. Whether we like it or not, not all of our actions are based on objective knowledge. We are driven by many things that definitely fall under categories such as beliefs, stereotypes etc.

Believing in something is not enough to prove others, but I can prove it to myself.

No, you can’t. You would have to prove that first.
Have fun doing that.

I did prove it to myself and my family members,friends, strangers, kids and it was fun.

 
Flag Post

tenco1, he said everything I believe in would be a lie, not everything I know would be a lie.



Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

No, you can’t. You would have to prove that first.
Have fun doing that.

I did prove it to myself and my family members,friends, strangers, kids and it was fun.

Correction: you preached. If all you have as evidence is your firm belief in it you cannot prove it, since faith is not evidence.
However, you can convince others of believing into it. Most religions do this through indoctrination (think of infant baptism and stuff like this). They are taught that that stuff is right. But they will never have valid evidence.
If you could prove it you should have no trouble presenting your evidence here and making us see how what you say is true. But you will not be able to do that unless you have some super-secret information that no one has ever seen before.
And fun has about as much to do with evidence as FOX News with quality journalism.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

tenco1, he said everything I believe in would be a lie, not everything I know would be a lie.

Could have sworn that he said knew.

Well, at least what I said can be rephrased into something needlessly complicated to still be true.

 
Flag Post


tenco1, he said everything I believe in would be a lie, not everything I know would be a lie.

Oh I understand now.

Correction: you preached. If all you have as evidence is your firm belief in it you cannot prove it, since faith is not evidence.

No I didn’t preach, I simply talked about God with them.
First you have to believe in him(which you don’t) and then you will see.

However, you can convince others of believing into it. Most religions do this through indoctrination (think of infant baptism and stuff like this). They are taught that that stuff is right. But they will never have valid evidence.

There were some infants, but most of the people I converted were real, grown men.
When they believe in it, they saw it. Its true you can’t have valid evidence about it, but they didn’t need evidence, they saw the evidence after they were converted.

If you could prove it you should have no trouble presenting your evidence here and making us see how what you say is true. But you will not be able to do that unless you have some super-secret information that no one has ever seen before.

…No… I can only prove he exists if you cooperate with me in real life and if you want to believe, if you don’t want to believe then its impossible. God will prove himself to you with super secret evidence that only allows you to know he is real, but you can’t show others unless they believe first. So in a way I do have super-secret information that no one has saw before.

Have you watched Evan almighty? Its a very perfect (exaggerated) example.

And fun has about as much to do with evidence as FOX News with quality journalism.

THAT is your opinion. And THAT is something I don’t understand.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:
Originally posted by EPR89:

Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

No, you can’t. You would have to prove that first.
Have fun doing that.

I did prove it to myself and my family members,friends, strangers, kids and it was fun.


Correction: you preached. If all you have as evidence is your firm belief in it you cannot prove it, since faith is not evidence.

No I didn’t preach, I simply talked about God with them.
First you have to believe in him(which you don’t) and then you will see.

If you think that this is how proving something works then there’s no use talking to you in this thread.

Out of interest: do you believe in an Invisible Pink Unicorn? What about a guy with a horse wagon that pulls the sun across the horizon?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

No I didn’t preach, I simply talked about God with them.
First you have to believe in him (which you don’ t) and then you will see.

And I’m going to guess that you don’t see the flaw in that reasoning.

There were some infants,

You don’t actually know just what infants are, do you?

but most of the people I converted were real, grown men.

And what did they believe in before?

When they believe in it, they saw it.

Okay, so when you start believing in a religion, you start believing in a religion. Got it.

Its true you can’t have valid evidence about it, but they didn’t need evidence,

And why was that exactly?

they saw the evidence after they were converted.

No they didn’t.

You just said that there was no valid evidence, and invalid evidence is not evidence.

…No… I can only prove he exists if you cooperate with me in real life and if you want to believe, if you don’t want to believe then its impossible.

In other words, you cannot actually prove it, because if the person was willing to believe in the first place proof is irrelevant.

God will prove himself to you with super secret evidence that only allows you to know he is real, but you can’t show others unless they believe first. So in a way I do have super-secret information that no one has saw before.

And this is the exact problem that I (and many others) have with religious people trying to claim that they can convert someone and/or that they have proof that their religion is real.

Have you watched Evan almighty? Its a very perfect (exaggerated) example.

How, exactly?

Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:
And THAT is something I don’t understand.

You seem to not understand a lot of things.

 
Flag Post

Correction x 2

If you think that this is how proving something works then there-

  • It only works if your proving God to someone in REAL life who WANTS to believe.

If you think

  • I know that is how you prove God to someone. I can’t show you here.

Out of interest: do you believe in an Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Nooooo. << (Looks left) >> (Looks right)

What about a guy with a horse wagon that pulls the sun across the horizon?

Duh, it has been scientifically proven that the sun is pulled by a guy with a horse wagon.

No I don’t.

 
Flag Post

If you want to believe, then you are willing to let proof slide. You’re already desperate in a manner of speaking, and desperate people tend to ignore evidence.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

Correction x 2

If you think that this is how proving something works then there-

  • It only works if your proving God to someone in REAL life who WANTS to believe.

If you think

  • I know that is how you prove God to someone. I can’t show you here.

Of course you can’t. Because this is not proof. It is convincing. Talking someone into something. Totally different thing.



Out of interest: do you believe in an Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Nooooo. << (Looks left) >> (Looks right)

What about a guy with a horse wagon that pulls the sun across the horizon?

Duh, it has been scientifically proven that the sun is pulled by a guy with a horse wagon.

No I don’t.

Here’s the thing: you first need to believe in those things, then I can prove them to you…

Has this made my point clear?
Your claim that you can prove God to anyone, if only they believe in it first is grade A bullshit. You don’t have any evidence. You only have faith. You cannot prove anything with faith.

 
Flag Post

And I’m going to guess that you don’t see the flaw in that reasoning.

Yep, because there was no flaw.

You don’t actually know just what infants are, do you?

I thought you were an infant who happened to be really smart.

And what did they believe in before?

Some of them believed in different Gods who failed them. While others were Agnostic, Atheist, and Agnostic Atheist.

Okay, so when you start believing in a religion, you start believing in a religion. Got it.

  • How can you believe in a religion twice. XD
    No, when you start believing in God he proves himself to you.

And why was that exactly?

Because they got the evidence already and they don’t need it anymore.

No they didn’t.

Yes they did.

You just said that there was no valid evidence, and invalid evidence is not evidence.

Whaaa? Just be quiet.

IN other words, you cannot actually prove it, because if the person was willing to believe in the first place proof is irrelevant.

How is that irrevelant? Nevermind, you need to believe first before you get to see the proof. You want to see the proof first and that is not the way God works.

And this is the exact problem that I (and many others) have with religious people trying to claim that they can convert someone and/or that they have proof that their religion is real.

THAT is one of your many problems. Not mine, I could care less about you. G2H

How, exactly?

I am assuming you didn’t watch it. So I wont explain it.

 
Flag Post

Why do you need to believe first before you get the proof? If it is proof then you don’t need to believe, it’ll still be proof.

As an aside, I’m an occultist, not an athiest, so I accept that beings we might call gods likely exist. The difference between us, is I go looking for proof, whereas you are willing to just make shit up and hope some of it is right.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

If you want to believe, then you are willing to let proof slide. You’re already desperate in a manner of speaking, and desperate people tend to ignore evidence.

I only argue with two people at a time lady. Not even.

Of course you can’t. Because this is not proof. It is convincing. Talking someone into something. Totally different thing.

After I convince someone that God is the savior and blah blah and accept him to your blah blah, God will personally show himself unto thee.

Here’s the thing: you first need to believe in those things, then I can prove them to you…

But that us where you go wrong, so lets say that you convert me into an invisible unicorn believer. After you make me believe, the unicorn will show himself unto me? Because that is what God does.

Has this made my point clear?

Has this made MY point clear about the invisi-unicorn?

Your claim that you can prove God to anyone, if only they believe in it first is grade A bullshit. You don’t have any evidence. You only have faith. You cannot prove anything with faith.

Whaaat? I can’t prove God to anyone…… God proves himself. :3

 
Flag Post

From what i get the Evidence ZombiestookmyTV is referring to are the Emotions some People feel when they think/believe they are having a supernatural religious experience.

For example the TV Preachers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPjvr9gq5w4

Problem is this stuff works with any religion and even aliens and other supposedly supernatural experiences. Its people getting high on their natural brain chemistry. Works especially well to dupe People that have not(or rarely) experienced the same type of pleasurable emotional activity in a non-religious context.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

Here’s the thing: you first need to believe in those things, then I can prove them to you…

But that us where you go wrong, so lets say that you convert me into an invisible unicorn believer. After you make me believe, the unicorn will show himself unto me? Because that is what God does.

Of course it will. If it doesn’t you didn’t believe hard enough.


Your claim that you can prove God to anyone, if only they believe in it first is grade A bullshit. You don’t have any evidence. You only have faith. You cannot prove anything with faith.

Whaaat? I can’t prove God to anyone…… God proves himself. :3

You said yourself that you proved God to yourself and others.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

Yep, because there was no flaw.

And that’s why I assumed you didn’t see the flaw EPR described.

I thought you were an infant who happened to be really smart.

Okay, so you really don’t.

Inafnts are basically babies, and as such they aren’t old enough to walk or sometimes talk, much less comprehend ideas like religion.

Some of them believed in different Gods who failed them. While others were Agnostic, Atheist, and Agnostic Atheist.

And that’s where I start to think you’re making shit up.

No, when you start believing in God he proves himself to you.

In other words, you believe in God’s existence once you believe in the existence of God.

Because they got the evidence already and they don’t need it anymore.

That’s because there was no evidence.

Yes they did.

Nu-uh.

Whaaa? Just be quiet.

You’re not very good at arguing your viewpoint.

How is that irrevelant? Nevermind, you need to believe first before you get to see the proof. You want to see the proof first and that is not the way God works.

Yes, God work on the purest of logics: circular.

THAT is one of your many problems. Not mine, I could care less about you. G2H

Congratulations, you have acquired dick status.

I am assuming you didn’t watch it. So I wont explain it.

I watched it, but I don’t get how it’s a “perfect example,” I don’t even know what it’s an example of, because you can’t be bothered to actually try to elaborate on your points.

 
Flag Post

Of course it will. If it doesn’t you didn’t believe hard enough.

OK, what if I believe harder, will it show itself to me? :3

You said yourself that you proved God to yourself and others.

Well, I am only human, I make mistakes, AND I am telling you now that God proves himself unto people, not me.

And that’s why I assumed you didn’t see the flaw EPR described.

OH! But that is not the flaw, that is just the way God works. Believe first, see later. While human nature is SEE first, then believe. People didn’t believe man could fly in airplanes, until they saw it happen. But that is not how God rolls my nigga.’

Okay, so you really don’t.


Inafnts are basically babies, and as such they aren’t old enough to walk or sometimes talk, much less comprehend ideas like religion.

Are you denying that you are an infant? :P

And that’s where I start to think you’re making shit up.

And why do you think that?

In other words, you believe in God’s existence once you believe in the existence of God.

When you believe about the existence, he will show himself unto you. That is what I learned.

That’s because there was no evidence.

You are in no position to say that.

Nu-uh.

Don’t make me take out my Rayquaza on you.

You’re not very good at arguing your viewpoint.

Mutually, I say the same for you. Because you are SUPPOSED to make me understand your viewpoint, and your not doing a good job at it.

Yes, God work on the purest of logics: circular.

THANK YOU! I am putting that quote in my profile.

Congratulations, you have acquired dick status.

You made me laugh when I read this.

I watched it, but I don’t get how it’s a “perfect example,” I don’t even know what it’s an example of, because you can’t be bothered to actually try to elaborate on your points.

Maybe when you make your own points and not attack mine, I will elaborate for you.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

THANK YOU! I am putting that quote in my profile.

Circular logic is not a good thing.

Maybe when you make your own points and not attack mine, I will elaborate for you.

I already did make my points, there’s nothing left for me to say about my point of view with religion.

Also, you still are completely missing the point of this entire forum, because it was made for people to discuss their ideas, something you refuse to do on the basis of people disagreeing with you. Ironically, that can sometimes be solved by not getting worked up by people disagreeing with you and growing the balls to explain your opinions and not try to make up excuses.

 
Flag Post

Circular logic is not a good thing.

Shit, you should have said that earlier.

I already did make my points, there’s nothing left for me to say about my point of view with religion.

Good, then in that case.

Also, you still are completely missing the point of this entire forum, because it was made for people to discuss their ideas, something you refuse to do on the basis of people disagreeing with you.

What? In the beginning I said Everything I believed in would be a lie, and it was just a statement, I was not going to post again. But YOU couldn’t keep your mouth shut about anything. Soo here we are.

Ironically, that can sometimes be solved by not getting worked up by people disagreeing with you

Then why are you getting ironically worked up about me disagreeing with you? Just waddle away.

and growing the balls to explain your opinions and not try to make up excuses.

EXCUSES!?? Isn’t that what everyone is doing? I did express my idea, and you didn’t like my idea. So you got PO.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

EXCUSES!?? Isn’t that what everyone is doing? I did express my idea, and you didn’t like my idea. So you got PO.

You expressed it, then refused to elucidate when asked, so we could not examine your claims in any detail. You were then left with just stating a personal opinion which disagreed with facts we know to be true, so evidence was brought to bear against your position, and you refused to consider what was being shown to you, whilst spouting off more personal bullshit, and insulting the other posters.

So there is very little left to say, except to point out that the whole concept of a discussion forum, where people discuss their ideas, and take on board what others were saying, is lost to you.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

What? In the beginning I said Everything I believed in would be a lie, and it was just a statement, I was not going to post again. But YOU couldn’t keep your mouth shut about anything. Soo here we are.

Because you have to reply to everything I say?

Then why are you getting ironically worked up about me disagreeing with you? Just waddle away.

Because I’m not.

EXCUSES!??

Yes, that is what I said, and what you are doing.

Isn’t that what everyone is doing?

No.

I did express my idea, and you didn’t like my idea.

Except I didn’t because you’re forgetting a little something called “what I was replying to,” which was in this case, this:

I am assuming you didn’t watch it. So I wont explain it.
Maybe when you make your own points and not attack mine, I will elaborate for you.

So, no, I didn’t dislike your idea, I didn’t know what you were talking about, and then you started making excuses so you didn’t have to.

 
Flag Post

Hehe, it’s an old topic. But I like Zombies moxie and whimsy.

Alright. So if one must first believe in God to see God. Is this not a destructive irrational mind set? By encouraging, specifically, blind faith one does not endorse your particular theological set alone. You encourage /everything/ and generally madness. Our rational mind, our logic, is all created around pattern recognition. In abandoning that we have no basis, no order, for any action. You say “believe in God and you will see him.” which is so contrary, so unique, it amounts to “do something, and anything may happen.”

So how is this an action of a just or loving god? How is Blind Faith a universal virtue which should be rewarded? What is the value of Blind Faith?

Secondly. What about atheistic converts? Are you going to suggest they simply did not believe in God hard enough in the first place? If believing is seeing, how can those who used to believe recant their faith, or rather, knowledge?