rate according to believability

[rickym]

there was a thread stating that it is ok to believe even without proof. so i made a list of things which may not necessarily have proof so the pexers here can rate their believability. the listing below has no specific order. number them according to believability with one being the highest. place others which you have little knowledge of in one bunch.

christian god
muslim god
aliens
ghosts
manghuhula
acupuncture
santa claus
jesus christ as the son of god
jesus christ as god
holy blood holy grail/da vinci code
gnosticism-
idea that the old testament god is a malevolent god and the new
testament god is a benevolent god.
scientiology
reincarnation- hindu style- with a transmigrating soul
reincarnation- buddhist style- without a transmigrating soul
one life with an afterlife but no reincarnation
afterlife

[Frank_Mackie]

acupuncture's efficacy is the most believable because there is some anecdotal and/or physical proof of that...

Everything else is equally believable/unbelievable.

[fredda]

idea that the old testament god is a malevolent god and the new
testament god is a benevolent god.

this is the most believable claim for me because it's clearly shown in the Old Testament. you don't even have to read "between" the lines. it was shown not in a metaphorical way or through figurative speech.

there was a thread stating that it is ok to believe even without proof. so i made a list of things which may not necessarily have proof so the pexers here can rate their believability. the listing below has no specific order. number them according to believability with one being the highest. place others which you have little knowledge of in one bunch.

christian god
muslim god
aliens
ghosts
manghuhula
acupuncture
santa claus
jesus christ as the son of god
jesus christ as god
holy blood holy grail/da vinci code
gnosticism-
idea that the old testament god is a malevolent god and the new
testament god is a benevolent god.
scientiology
reincarnation- hindu style- with a transmigrating soul
reincarnation- buddhist style- without a transmigrating soul
one life with an afterlife but no reincarnation
afterlife

[easter]

People doubt such things and yet say that evolution is a fact.

Somebody made the computer you are working on right now and yet a very complex thing such as the universe just came out of nothing?

Is that believable?

[micketymoc]

People doubt such things and yet say that evolution is a fact.

Somebody made the computer you are working on right now and yet a very complex thing such as the universe just came out of nothing?

Is that believable?

Might I suggest you actually read how scientists arrived at such conclusions, before you make any conclusions on its believability?

I heartily recommend A Short History of Nearly Everything, since it's quite entertaining and very educational. The author also stays away from any religious ax-grinding.

Also, how old do you think the Universe is? And how did you come across the final figure?

[easter]

You can arrive at any mathematical formula and theory there is. But the basic ground on this is that according to atheist, the universe was created out of nothing! Out of nothing!

The creation story was made God and if He is indeed God He should have been present at the time the world was created so logically His pronouncements have more value.

While evolution was made by a man like us and this man was never at the beginning of the human race much more the universe. Plus the theory was made to show an agenda that the white race was more superior to colored ones.

[micketymoc]

In other words, "Don't confuse me with the facts!"

[Frank_Mackie]

In other words, "Don't confuse me with the facts!"

.....

[Frank_Mackie]

In other words, "Don't confuse me with the facts!"

.....

[Frank_Mackie]

In other words, "Don't confuse me with the facts!"

.....

[SamLowry]

.....

hahaha... pwned.

[easter]

In other words, "Don't confuse me with the facts!"

Or more telling... are you confused by the experience?

[jmromano]

You can arrive at any mathematical formula and theory there is. But the basic ground on this is that according to atheist, the universe was created out of nothing! Out of nothing!

The creation story was made God and if He is indeed God He should have been present at the time the world was created so logically His pronouncements have more value.

While evolution was made by a man like us and this man was never at the beginning of the human race much more the universe. Plus the theory was made to show an agenda that the white race was more superior to colored ones.

[micketymoc]

You can arrive at any mathematical formula and theory there is. But the basic ground on this is that according to atheist, the universe was created out of nothing! Out of nothing!

The creation story was made God and if He is indeed God He should have been present at the time the world was created so logically His pronouncements have more value.

While evolution was made by a man like us and this man was never at the beginning of the human race much more the universe. Plus the theory was made to show an agenda that the white race was more superior to colored ones.

You never answered my question. How many years old is the Universe, then, in your opinion? And how do you know this?

I’ll venture another question – this belief of yours, that God made the Universe in a process incompatible with current scientific views… do you test this belief? Have you weighed it against competing beliefs? What criteria do you use to verify your beliefs?

Your approach to my suggestion that you read up is actually quite telling. Obviously you don’t know how we know what we know, and it doesn’t matter to you. (“You can arrive at any formula and theory there is,” you said, as if these formulae and theories were invented out of nowhere.) The fact that your assertion above is riddled with inaccuracies proves my point –

It doesn’t matter to you if your assertions are true or false.

As long as they’re putatively loyal to your worldview, you’ll take them at face value.

(Same goes for you, jmromano, you old bullshítter, you.)

[micketymoc]

Hey easter, remember the question I was asking you over and over again, the question you avoided answering no matter how many times I'd ask?

In your opinion, how old is the earth? How old is the universe? What is your position on evolution, the Big Bang, and the descent of man?

Still waiting for the answer. O baka naman you're going to show me your Sayonachi kung-fu. Again.

[SamLowry]

When I was a kid, I was offended by the question: Who/What created God? Since you guys insist on Cause and effect in the creation of the universe..... let's delve deeper, then.

and again, If, hypothetically, an intelligent being caused the Big Bang, is it automatically the bible God? What about the other gods?

Because Ultimately Yahweh, Jesus, Mithras, Zeus, Krishna, Baal and all the other gods have equal amounts of evidence for and against them. All have books that does not contain knowledge that is unknown to the writers at the time.

If only the Bible had no passages that contradict proven facts that: the earth was a ball or spherical (not has a circle, or a circle) and not flat and has corners, Or that the earth is not the center of the universe and moves/orbits, that plants can't exist without sunlight, etc.

If it got all these things wrong.... why are we looking at it as a source of scientific knowledge?

If only it mentioned "the Gigantic Lizards buried deep within the earths" or E=mc2.

[easter]

If, hypothetically, an intelligent being caused the Big Bang, is it automatically the bible God? What about the other gods?

Because Ultimately Yahweh, Jesus, Mithras, Zeus, Krishna, Baal and all the other gods have equal amounts of evidence for and against them. All have books that does not contain knowledge that is unknown to the writers at the time.

Apologists have cited various historical references here about Jesus and archaeological discoveries supporting the Old and New Testament. You could not say the same to the others you mentioned.

[micketymoc]

Sayonachi. SAYONACHI! Sayonachi.

[vinta18]

Apologists have cited various historical references here about Jesus and archaeological discoveries supporting the Old and New Testament. You could not say the same to the others you mentioned.

Yes he could (just follow micketymoc's link above). Just because you can't (or don't want to) understand it doesn't make it less true.

[micketymoc]

EASTER: I have perfect knowledge of the origins of the Earth. The Bible is my guide. Genesis is inerrant.

COMMONSENSE PEOPLE: Wait a minute, the Bible teaches that the Earth is flat and that a flood covered the entire world a few thousand years ago. There just isn't enough evidence to...

EASTER: I'm not hearing this! LALALALALALALALALALALALALA... See? Perfect knowledge! I believe it... that makes it true! Your "facts" and "theories" and "science" don't convince me at all!

COMMONSENSE PEOPLE: But...

EASTER: LALALALALALALALALALALALALA...