sure, greed, wealth, politics's, the usual.
Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)
- Thread starter omit
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
sure, greed, wealth, politics's, the usual.
Bennett.
Your training, Matrix
10k Posts
Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 - Colyer, Fantasia, McDonald-Tipungwuti and McKernan
Essendon Player Sponsor 2017
Essendon Player Sponsor 2016
Essendon Player Sponsor 2014
Essendon Player Sponsor 2015
- Banned
- #13,477
that's pure Bullshit. religion spread across the world through blood, nothing to do with scrutiny or intelligence. it was spread by the sword and policed by fire.
its complete bullshit, there is no firmament, the stars aren't fixed points in the sky. there's dozens of examples where the books are flat out wrong. what you've written isn't just incorrect, its a flat out lie. 2000 years 1800 of which was spent slaughtering anyone who questioned it.
this is the legacy of your faith.
your own jesus would be disgusted with you if any of his teachings are true.
So...you know nothing. Ok.
time to put the bong down.
everywhere Christianity spread it was through war which led to the destruction and forced conversion of the local populace. this is seen from the early days of gaul all the way to Nebraska and even here in the late 19th century Indigenous people were forced to convert to Christianity, through isolating them on missions where they suffered physical and physiological abuse.
heretics, that's anyone your many churches disagreed with, or in some cases just didn't like the result was the same. death, it transcends continents and dominations. that award winning painting is of the death of bruno.
it appears you're as ignorant of history as you are of science.
Bennett.
Your training, Matrix
10k Posts
Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 - Colyer, Fantasia, McDonald-Tipungwuti and McKernan
Essendon Player Sponsor 2017
Essendon Player Sponsor 2016
Essendon Player Sponsor 2014
Essendon Player Sponsor 2015
- Banned
- #13,479
Actually, it appears you are ignorant of Christianity and use the terrible acts committed by people using it as leverage as a definitive example of what it is. It would be just like me viewing all atheists as clueless, intellectually dishonest twits because of someone like dawkins.
no you conflate modern interpretations to absolve you're bloodied and sordid history, pathetic.
- Nov 21, 2010
- 13,486
- 17,338
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Detroit Pistons
The bible asserted that the world was (literally) created in seven days. That there were angels, that people lived until 900, that the world was flooded, that you could essentially accomplish selective breeding by making animals look at patterns, that there was a substantial Jewish slave population in ancient Egypt, it alluded to the earth being flat, stars being stationary points of light that could fall to earth and baby eating seven headed dragons.
If you think the bible has not yet been discredited, then you are approaching this from a point of 'the onus is on others to prove an absence of something' which is absurd and is not the aim of science. Science doesn't set out to positively disprove anything. The onus is on the religious to positively prove the presence of their God. And what evidence do they have? Generally, Holy texts. And who decides that these texts are anything more than the mythical scribblings of ancient tribes? God does. And how do we know God exists? Because of Holy texts...
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,232
- 24,283
- AFL Club
- Sydney
the church of "you can't explain" that seems very popular these days.
you would have some semblance of a point if people weren't also profoundly influenced by many other things.
the writings of Solon's laws for example have helped shape and define the entire worlds political sphere, written over 500 years before the tales of jesus started too emerge.
Plato and Aristotle are what has led to entire fields of which people dedicate their life to from philosophy to science.
hell medicine has been the greatest impact on human life no matter the region or culture every single religion concerns itself with healing on some degree.
the influence of astronomy on pre-historic man is what has led to most modern religions from summerians to the babylons every ancient cultures first depictions are of the skies above long before there was any writing, sure many draw men, many draw animals, many draw imaginary creatures, many draw even the abstract. but they ALL drew the nights sky. and that influence is still retained as the society evolves.
people are profoundly influenced by everything from a rainstorm to a leaf falling off a tree dedicating their entire lives to whatever they found themselves moved by from that point on, humans are influenced by everything around them. especially abstract ideas which they can contribute to and in turn influence. all religions have been influenced adopted and adapted by MAN.
a "know it all" (first time i've seen it used to describe people who freely admit they don't know everything) merely uses the fact that for all the wars, attempted genocides, forced conversions and attempts to control both speech and thought itself. points out the fundamental flaws in religious propaganda. the simple there is no evidence for god. no religion is more right or more correct then any other. proponents of "god" like to think there pathetic religion is "true and correct" and dismiss all others, based on what? oh other religions don't make sense, other religions can't be true because they got X wrong, oh X has proven it is false.
in the absence of evidence of a god existing (and no your books aren't evidence of a god, they are evidence of belief in a god) then there's only two logical stances to take, either A all gods are real or B no god's are real. because you have no way to discern the "true" god you have no way to know its impossible. you show me one single religious person on earth who doesn't dismiss other gods and cultural beliefs as mere superstition and i'll show you the worlds most blatant liar. the only people who don't think that X religion's followers are being misled are the ones following it.
Science however does not care for what you think is right. it care only for evidence and so far the evidence has said numerous times your all wrong.
Its not about explaining everything there's trillions of things science doesn't know and that's kind of the point, unlike religion Science doesn't provide answers. it gives you the tools to ask Questions. So far when we've asked questions, the evidence keeps showing that thousand year old books are riddled with errors and with so many errors in the books, why should anyone believe the claims about gods?
so now that you've skimmed read most of that let me ask you a question? what happens if people ever figure out why people are profoundly influenced by religion? what happens if its merely a function of the human brain for evolutionary purposes, that is no longer needed? functionally no more important then the appendix?
and to save you the time what happens if we found out that its because god really exists?................ quite simple, i'll believe in god there will be evidence we'll actually know! but right know WE don't know, you DON'T KNOW. You're choosing a positive claim based on nothing.
let me ask you a better question, what happens if we never know? that's what this is really about isn't it?
You are going off on a tangent again.
You conveniently lump in all religions to come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist because different religions believe in different Gods. God is either true or false, God is true is not dependent on all people believing in the same God. It is possible that different people believe in different Gods and that there is only one true God. It just makes those who believe in the true God right and the others wrong, but it does not disprove God. Whether there is only ONE true God is a different question.
Is it logically impossible for there to be a God. No.
Is it physically impossible for there to be a God. No.
Is it technologically impossible for there to be a God. No.
The absence of proof does not make it impossible, it just means there is no proof, which also does not mean it will become a reality one day.
Which brings us to your point about evidence and science.
There is no scientific explanation for belief so you dismiss belief as unscientific. No evidence does NOT mean false. You should know this if you claim to base your thinking on reason. You are happy to put your faith in some scientist, who may not exist yet, and that is hunky dory to you, but then you dismiss someone else's belief for doing essentially the same thing. As has been pointed out, over the years science has changed its explanation on many things, that doesn't make science hokum. The suggestion that science explains things for once and for all is a stretch too far.
You ask, what happens if someone provides an explanation for belief? Good question. I presume some people would deny it if it doesn't suit them, as is their way, but to most I would imagine that it would provide further clarity.
As for ever knowing, that is probably where religion trumps science and could perhaps explain belief in religion over science. Who doesn't want to know the answer? As it stands, specifically in relation to the existence of God, religion says we will know the answer for sure.
- Moderator
- #13,484
So were Ug and Erk the only Homo sapiens sapiens at the time who were able to do this? And what sort of 'gods' did Ug and Erk envisage? An over-riding sky deity, that was the creator of all or just local deities embodied in their local environment?
Just concepts like infinity, enigmas wrapped up in riddles and such stuff.
Nowadays people can be born again and fall in love with the Christian message but back then much sexier to say people became Christians for power and political reasons or it was forced upon them.
At some stage we have to give this message from Jesus some credit.
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,593
- 23,344
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
The first humans were one celled soup dwellers.
cyril4brownlow
Team Captain
- Mar 13, 2015
- 401
- 522
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Debating whether there is a god or not seems ludicrous when there is 0 evidence to suggest there is one. I would rather the question be, Do you wish a theistic god existed? Whether it be the judeo-christian, islamic or jewish god. Perhaps that is for another thread though.
And before that we were just energy ready to go Bang.
And before that energy we were?
Last edited:
the fact that people be born again is irrelevant. the spread influence and power of Christianity was spread through bloodshed. just because the religion is changing as it fears a waning in its influence (whether real or imagined) does not change how Christianity gained its influence.
Nowadays Australia welcomes all comers attempts to repair relations with its indigenous people. it doesn't change the fact this nation arose out of the invasion of this country by the british. now you can think that was more or less a good thing, you can think that was a pretty s**t act. you can think it was a bit both, you think whatever happened we're hear now together and need to work through it.
one thing you can't do is pretend it was all peaceful and loving and everybody held hands, skipping along sinning we are Australian. To deny the bloody and sordid past of the Christian faith is to deny history.
I also find it funny you mention born again's considering the country which has forged the path for born again Christians still has two states where you must be religious in order to join government at any level. It was those very laws which were once rifle throughout USA that lead to influence of "born again" churches in the US.
no the absence of evidence means you cannot logically side with one god over another, they all have the same amount of evidence, zero.
there is absolutely no way even for a religious person to "know" which god is correct as there is no evidence. With no evidence they all have the same equal chance of being real. there's no way to discern one over the other.
If i give you a list of horses with no barrier numbers, no form guide, nothing but a list. then every horse has the same equal chance of winning. you pick a horse and declare this horse is going to win and you 100% believe it you know this this horse is going to win. someone else makes the same claim of another horse. there's no logical way to accept that. Unless we accept "belief" as evidence. then both those horses are going to win. Why does your belief trump his? it doesn't the chances are equal.
the same is true of gods, without evidence they all have the same chance of existing. If you take it on faith and are willing to accept "faith" as the only requirement of a god existing. then objectively any god that is believed in MUST EXIST. If you don't accept faith as evidence then you shrug your shoulders and say, no.
and With no evidence, yes you can logically claim something doesn't exist, just as saying the Lithgow panther doesn't exist. why? Specifically because there's no evidence for it. That is how science works it doesn't make positive claims without evidence, if you wish to make a positive claim you must present positive evidence, without evidence its both scientific and logical to say, Bullshit. If you want me to believe you, provide evidence.
Why should i believe there's a god without evidence? Nullius in verba. take nobody's word for it. That would include god itself, if god wants to convince me of its existence then it knows I require evidence.
I haven't placed "faith" in any scientist. I've merely looked at trends about discovery throughout history and drew the logic conclusion that this trend will continue. If i knock 100 glasses off a table and 100 glasses break, its logical to assume the 101st glass knocked off the table will also break. If you can provide me with a reason as to why scientific discovery is going to "end" i'm all ears, Why is this trend going to stop?
and as for ever you're line on ever knowing that is exactly why I believe religion still exists. people don't like uncertainty, they prefer to know things. even if they are wrong. not that they will admit it, it takes generations before religions sin's are admitted and redressed. again looking at history it shows this trend will continue.
Last edited:
You could say the same for cricket.
I see, so if you could show me where people were forced to play cricket and were murdered for not playing cricket......
Not all doom and gloom.
"No informed person would endeavor to maintain that the churchmen were always in the right, but by the same token no one can deny that they were generally on the side of the angels in their treatment of the Indians. It was the outraged voice of the friar, Bartolomé de las Casas, which first made Europe aware of the fate that had befallen thousands of the natives in enslavement by the Spanish conquerors. As it was the agitation aroused by Las Casas and his kind that prompted Pope Paul III in 1537 to issue the bull Sublimis Deus in which he declared: "The said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ." (American Catholicism, 5)"
The question is " Has Christianity had a positive or negative effect on the evolution of man/ society.
Just a side note on capital punishment. England 1832 the state could still put you to death for theft.
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,232
- 24,283
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Of course there is no logical way of accepting one horse over another, that is the point. Logic doesn't give you an answer simply because it can't. Logic says this and this and this and that is possible, this may/could perhaps be possible but there is no logical way of ruling it out.
Your 101st glass example is classic post hoc fallacy, it is not logic it is inference. Inferences can be accurate or inaccurate, logical or illogical, justified or unjustified.
I have no objection to anyone holding whatever belief it is that they choose, none whatsoever. (Except for Essendon supporters that think James Hird has done nothing wrong). I agree that people have a strong need to know and that could be the sole reason that they are religious. But I don't think that is the whole of it. I always find it strange that people say religion provides no answers when clearly lots of people thinks that it does. I am not talking about whether Adam & Eve were real or whether in fact God is real or not. There is lots of angst against religion primarily based on the actions of the nutters, which is fair enough, but there are many many many many religious people that for them it does the opposite of making them extreme. I don't see how that is bad.
No logic does not say this, this and this is possible. logic says look this, this and this could happen BASED ON the evidence. I can quite easily say Tony Abbott wont morph into a hermaphroditic slug tomorrow. this is because there's no evidence that any person has ever turned into a hermaphroditic slug let alone in less then a day. it would be illogical to assume, that because there's no evidence he won't magically turn into a hermaphroditic slug that i must entertain this idiotic notion that tony abbott will turn into a hermaphroditic slug tomorrow.
If something is to be based on logic then there must be evidence. without evidence logic tells you. its rubbish. do you believe bunyips exist? If not why?
and please don't you terms you don't understand. the post hoc fallacy is about assigning a cause to an event based on the order the events occurred. assigning a trend, is looking at events repeating themselves over and over and deciding the outcome will be the same.
If a clock chimes every hour, i don't need to know why the clock chims every hour, in order to know that it will. now if was to declare that either:
A) the clock striking the hour causes the clock to chime
B) the chime causes the clock to strike the hour
then that would be a post hoc fallacy because i've assigned causality to the result based on the order of event's.
to point out a trend I need no reason for why the falling glass will break, I only point out that based on the trend of 100 glasses falling and breaking that the same result will occur with the next glass. I never said that the glass falling causes the glass to break.
no the angst towards religion is that it completely illogical, you said earlier science tells you god could exist. you base this on what? what evidence do you have? see because this is the entire point, religious people, most religious people anyway simply do not understand science at all. science does not deal in what "could" science demands evidence, the end. you cannot say well this could happen. you must say this could happen based on, this, this and this. without evidence you cannot not scientifically state that it could exist. it requires evidence, Testifable evidence.
without evidence science tells you that your claim is unscientific. there's no need to draw a conclusion, because it is unable to stand up to scientific rigour. and logic says using unscientific methods to draw conclusions is illogical. just as believing the royal family are lizards or any other claptrap it is all illogical.
as for extremists intensifying that angst that's because religious people refuse to admit the extremists are a symptom of religion. without religion there's no religious extremists. you cannot put a grenade in someone's hand then pretend you had nothing to do with it because they pulled to the pin.
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,232
- 24,283
- AFL Club
- Sydney
You are conflating a couple of issues.
Scientifically impossible is much different to logically impossible, to say something is scientifically impossible it DOES NOT immediately follow that it is logically impossible. Logic is based on 3 laws; 1. the law of non contradiction (nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time) 2. the law of identity (everything is identical to itself) and 3. the law of excluded middle (for any particular property, everything either has it or lacks it). Anything which violates these laws is logically impossible.
Something that is logically possible does not need to be real, by the same token it does not mean that it will ever be real.
It isn't phenomena themselves that contradict scientific law, but rather our theories about them. Theories change.
A lack of evidence is no evidence at all, as such the conclusion doesn't follow the premise = logically falacious.
A claim's truth is established by the amount of evidence in its favor, not by the lack of evidence against it.
Bearing all that in mind, how much evidence is there in favor of no God?
- Moderator
- #13,498
That is so.
And the claim that is being made by many is that there is an "immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the perfect, omnipotent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe".
In the past many have claimed the existence of supernatural beings controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or that supernatural beings are a personification of a force.
These claims are often, but not always, contained in the contents of literary tomes, regarded as "holy" by said claimants.
Where is the hard evidence to support such claims?
How much evidence is there for "God"?
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,232
- 24,283
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Logic is not your strong point eh. I'll repeat...
A claim's truth is established by the amount of evidence in its favor, not by the lack of evidence against it.
How much evidence do you have that there is no God? Come on, spell it out.
- Moderator
- #13,500
I'm agnostic. I'm not claiming that God doesn't exist. I have no evidence that an immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the perfect, omnipotent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe, doesn't exist. I do not claim either that this 'God' exists or does not exist. My daily life takes as little account of a supposed unknowable supernatural being as possible.
What I'm asking, is to those making a claim that 'God' does in fact exist. Upon what evidence do they claim such? If you claim that 'God' exists, upon what evidence do you base your claim?
After all "a claim's truth is established by the amount of evidence in its favor", does it not?
Last edited:
- Status
