Just a thought...

fitz0 · 16-07-2012 08:39PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

No sorry, if your going to call someones beliefs "makey uppey" then you need to also prove it or else keep your opinions to yourself. None of this double negative / space tea pot / flying spaghetti monster BS that critic atheist usually spew out. So go ahead, prove there is no god! By the way I am an atheist myself. I just don't go around taking the piss out of religious people, I have respect.

You can respect unfounded claims all you want, you can get defensive about said claims and you can be offended by our dismissive attitude all you want. I just have one question to ask you:

What do you expect on a forum set aside for atheists and agnostics in a country that is dominated in all walks of life, both public and private, by an anti-progressive religion, where we are still exposed to their unfounded claims daily and where those claims are held to be above scrutiny lest we be 'disrespectful'?

What you will get is (in no particular order)

Light hearted banter
Reasoned debate
Emotional debate
Unreasonable debate
Request for proof
Jibes
Digs
Slights
Bemusement
Amazement at human ingenuity
Wonder at natural phenomena
Dismissals of unfounded beliefs
Ridicule of silliness
Rhetoric

The list goes on

Respect is a word that gets bandied about here a lot. I say to anybody who demands or expects respect: Earn it!

Standman · 16-07-2012 08:55PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

No sorry, if your going to call someones beliefs "makey uppey" then you need to also prove it or else keep your opinions to yourself. None of this double negative / space tea pot / flying spaghetti monster BS that critic atheist usually spew out. So go ahead, prove there is no god! By the way I am an atheist myself. I just don't go around taking the piss out of religious people, I have respect.

It seems to me that you are annoyed because of your opinion that vocal atheists are making you look bad. If it bothers you then just refer to yourself as not religious, problem solved.

Knasher · 16-07-2012 09:00PM

whatsup? wrote: »

The idea that Christians discount any part of the Bible is incorrect as the Bible is the true word of God. I think what you're asking is if one can disregard the quotes where an "evil God" is evident and then pick and chose sections of the text where an all loving God is portrayed, surly religious belief is more of a pick and mix scenario based on personal opinion and bias, so therefore the God exists only in the mind of the believer and is not factually present at all.

I'm sorry but you can't simultaneously claim that you aren't discounting some parts of the bible while also claiming that natural events were misinterpreted natural events. Either they are misinterpreted natural events, and you are discounting the parts the attribute them to god, or you aren't discounting those parts and accept those events as examples of gods wrath. I honestly don't mind which you choose, but you need to choose one or the other and stop trying to jump back and forth between them.

whatsup? wrote: »

Firstly God is not evil and is all loving and good (mark 10;18), even close examination of the OT reveals this.

Quoting the bible doesn't prove your point, least of all in this crowd. How anyone could describe the events of 2 Kings 2 as the acts of a loving god are truly beyond me, (that's the part where god sends 2 bears to kill 42 children for calling Isiah bald). Honestly do you really expect me to believe that the brutal death sentence for children is a just punishment for calling someone bald, let alone the actions of a loving god.

whatsup? wrote: »

What the Catholic Church gathers from this is that only truly wicked people will feel Gods wrath not the Good

Matthew 5:19 "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments [...] shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven", as in it doesn't matter if you are evil, you are still counted in heaven, just not in one of the better positions. The only unpardonable sins are disbelief and not looking for forgiveness for your other sins.

whatsup? wrote: »

If you are looking for proof, factual proof that god exists then its no where to be found, not even in the Bible. Likewise proof that he does not exist is equally non existent. The Bible portrays a Loving God.

Okay so you accept that your belief is unfalsifiable, (there is no evidence that could prove your belief wrong), and that your belief is unprovable (there is no evidence that could prove your belief right). Obviously this wasn't true for the entirety of christianity, there was a time when the church took parts of the bible literally, until they were proven exactly wrong by science and then the belief changed to move out of conflict with reality, until we are left with a belief that mostly can't be proven incorrect by reality any more. (Obviously miracles by their very nature go against the idea that reality is consistent (otherwise they wouldn't be miracles), but I gather that most christian scientists just don't think about that very much.)

The question is, do you care if what you believe is correct or not? If so then it matters why you believe what you believe, what evidence led you to this belief and how accurate your interpretation of the evidence is. In all honesty do you have a reason beyond it being something your parents thought you to believe when you were too young to be able discern reality from fiction. Since the start of recorded history about 6000 years ago, we have examples of about 3000 beings which could be called gods. Uncountable people lived and died believing in these beings with presumably the same honesty and fervency that you believe in yours, and probably most with better (but ultimately misinformed) justifications for believing in theirs. But you accept (if only because those others would be in conflict with yours) that all the people who believed in (about) 2999 of these beings were wrong, while your is right with no better justification than that your belief (which has been purposefully reconstructed over time to be unfalsifiable) cannot be falsified.

When it comes right down to it, it's possible that you are right, but if you have discounted evidence as a necessary part of your beliefs, then you have done the equivalent of walking blindfolded into a room with a dartboard and thrown a dart randomly (or in this case thrown where another equally blindfolded person told you to throw). Perhaps you have hit, it is entirely possible if somewhat incredibly unlikely, but you have no way of knowing, and that doesn't seem to really bother you.

whatsup? wrote: »

An argument in theology is that if God didn’t exist and the Bible weren’t His Word, there would be no basis to say that good and evil exist, and therefore, brutality would be neither good nor bad. In other words, the Word of God presents us with Good and evil in the first place and our very thinking on moral justice is based fundamentally on the existence of a loving God. (that's a very tricky thing to get your head around by the way)

That argument rests on the premise that god is the source of morality and using that premise to assert gods existence. Ultimately it is both circular, using the presumption of gods existence as part of the proof, and based on an inherently unprovable assumption, that god is the source of morality. It would be an invalid argument on either count.

whatsup? wrote: »

The fact that there is no factual evidence in Gods existence is of (or should be) no concern to any Christian as the Bible says that looking for proof with doubt in mind will get you no where.

It would only be a concern if christians cared if their belief is true or not.

whatsup? wrote: »

Faith is belief with no evidence, but to say its a belief based on what you want to believe is completely incorrect.

Fundamentally if you aren't forced by evidence to believe something, then you are simply choosing to believe based on some arbitrary preference, yours or more likely in this case the preference of your parents.

whatsup? wrote: »

Faith is belief based on no evidence, the religious definition is one's response to ones' faith i.e praying, going to Mass and being sure of the God's plan is faith. Credulity is believing something too quickly based on little evidence but the issue of God stretches back over thousands and thousands of years and yet people still believe based on personal faith.

That is an argument from antiquity, just because a believe is old doesn't make it valid. If it did then we would all be still worshiping the sun.

whatsup? wrote: »

Belief in a God does not require factual proof however belief in homeopathy or astrology does, and rightly so.

Why? What is special about religious belief that it should be held beyond the requirements of evidence?

whatsup? wrote: »

Faith cannot be compared with worldly things which science demands should be proved beyond doubt.

Science demands no such thing. Science provides theories to explain the world around us and proves these theories are compatible with reality by allowing us to extrapolated tests from these theories and compare them against reality, but there is always room for a reasonable level of doubt and for new evidence which overturns the currently held theory.

whatsup? wrote: »

Faith is a gift not a means by which distortion is twisted to show a God in a Godless world. It's hard to explain it and those who argue that factual proof is required for everything will always disregard religious belief as blindness in a well lit world, but there will never come a time when we will be so far advanced that God will be disproved, because he cant be.

There will also never come a time when we can disprove faeries or Santa Claus or whatever other magical entities that people might choose to believe in. Especially if you give those beliefs the same leeway that christians are willing to give their beliefs, modifying them whenever they come into conflict with reality. But there may well come a time when religious believers are given the same respect that a grown person who believes in faeries would be given, because to be perfectly frank all you have over them is strength in numbers.

whatsup? wrote: »

I agree totally. Belief is worthy of ridicule as its a persons opinion ( tbh i only realized that on here) All opinions are worthy of debate.

Honestly that is great, even if we can never agree on the whole god question, that is a positive enough outcome for me. After that, the rest is just friendly debate.

whatsup? wrote: »

What I am saying is that people of faith should not fear their beliefs being disregarded by others as God can never be challenged by debate. Only shown to be a real presence in the world.

If something can be shown to be a real presence, then it can be measured and proven. The problem is that god isn't one of those things, so I assume you meant that metaphorically.

Kidchameleon · 16-07-2012 11:26PM

Standman wrote: »

It seems to me that you are annoyed because of your opinion that vocal atheists are making you look bad. If it bothers you then just refer to yourself as not religious, problem solved.

^^ Very good post there

Kidchameleon · 16-07-2012 11:30PM

SloomyRengen wrote: »

Do you know of a concept called 'burden of proof'? It essentially means that the onus is on the person professing something to be true to provide evidence, not on the person denying it. This argument can't be used for evolution, for example an evolutionary biologist would never say in a debate 'Why don't you prove evolution isn't true?' It would be asinine and foolish of him/her to use that as an argument. As for respect, the only way that is applicable is to the respect of someones right to hold whatever view they want, not respect for the views themselves, some of which are frankly reprehensible when it comes to God and should be dealt with with the riducule their dogma invites. Any in the public domain is open to piss taking.

If an atheist is going to challenge somebodys beliefs, calling them "makey uppey" then the onus is very much on the atheist to back that up.

Sonics2k · 16-07-2012 11:39PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If an atheist is going to challenge somebodys beliefs, calling them "makey uppey" then the onus is very much on the atheist to back that up.

It's really not, it's called the Burden of Proof.

If somebody makes a claim (of any type), then they need to show what they are saying is correct and accurate.

So in the case of Religion, for the sake of it I'll go with Judaism, they should show actual proof that their beliefs are correct, otherwise it's just another story just like Ancient Greek or Aztec myths.

If every religion claims it's the correct one, yet not a single one has ever been able to show evidence other than "This book says it's true, therefore it is" then they have failed to provide the proof.

It's comparable to me telling everyone my neighbour kicked my dog in the face, certainly a lot of people would be bothered but the smart folk will say "Prove it".

If we ignore the Burden of Proof system, then we may as well change the court system to Guilty until proven innocent.

16-07-2012 11:41PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If an atheist is going to challenge somebodys beliefs, calling them "makey uppey" then the onus is very much on the atheist to back that up.

If there is nothing to support the idea then it is indistinguishable from any makey uppey stuff you can imagine on the spot.

Religion is not special and not excluded from this. And if we are to take your rule seriously you then must take even the more ludicrous nonsense people can believe, from 9/11 being an inside job to psychic powers to fairies, just as seriously as any dearly held religion.
And since you obviously don't do this, and can't offer any possible way to mark when a fictional idea becomes ridiculous enough that it doesn't warrant respect, we know you don't even buy your own crap.

And of course using a nonsense argument like "well prove there's no god" just adds the fact you're ill informed on top of hypocritical.

robindch · 16-07-2012 11:58PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If an atheist is going to challenge somebodys beliefs, calling them "makey uppey" then the onus is very much on the atheist to back that up.

Not in the slightest. Religious people routinely make the most ridiculous claims about life, the universe and everything, without producing so much as a shred of evidence, logic, or reason. And frequently admitting openly, and sometimes even with pride, that their beliefs are such that they need none of these things to sustain them.

Under these circumstances, it's perfectly reasonable to call their religious beliefs "makey-uppey", since that term captures, roughly, the immature intellectual level they're at. If they want to be taken seriously at the adults' table, then they can start playing by the adults' rules.

Kidchameleon · 16-07-2012 11:58PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

It's really not, it's called the Burden of Proof.

If somebody makes a claim (of any type), then they need to show what they are saying is correct and accurate.

So in the case of Religion, for the sake of it I'll go with Judaism, they should show actual proof that their beliefs are correct, otherwise it's just another story just like Ancient Greek or Aztec myths.

If every religion claims it's the correct one, yet not a single one has ever been able to show evidence other than "This book says it's true, therefore it is" then they have failed to provide the proof.

It's comparable to me telling everyone my neighbour kicked my dog in the face, certainly a lot of people would be bothered but the smart folk will say "Prove it".

If we ignore the Burden of Proof system, then we may as well change the court system to Guilty until proven innocent.

I get what your saying ok, there is no proof that any of the religions are true. But then again there is no proof that atheism is correct either. I have no doubt that one day science will prove there is no god, that we will know exactly where we came from, but until that day I'm afraid we have one big thing in common with the religious folk, that being we hold beliefs without any concrete evidence.

Kidchameleon · 17-07-2012 12:00AM

robindch wrote: »

Not in the slightest. Religious people routinely make the most ridiculous claims about life, the universe and everything, without producing so much as a shred of evidence, logic, or reason. And frequently admitting openly, and sometimes even with pride, that their beliefs are such that they need none of these things to sustain them.

Under these circumstances, it's perfectly reasonable to call their religious beliefs "makey-uppey", since that term captures, roughly, the immature intellectual level they're at. If they want to be taken seriously at the adults' table, then they can start playing by the adults' rules.

Some of the smartest people from history and the modern day are religious so the above is not true at all.

robindch · 17-07-2012 12:24AM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Some of the smartest people from history and the modern day are religious so the above is not true at all.

And lots of catholic priests are pedophiles, so does that mean that catholicism is compatible with pedophilia?

Honestly, kid, a blind man could whistle an aircraft carrier through the gaps in your argument!

17-07-2012 12:59AM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Some of the smartest people from history and the modern day are religious so the above is not true at all.

And they tend to leave their smarts at the door when it comes to religion.

Kivaro · 17-07-2012 01:11AM

whatsup? wrote: »

And it's an insult to describe my faith as a "fairytale" by the way.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Well then, prove they are makey-uppey so...

The basis of your religion is a fairytale that was makey-uppeyed from other 'religions':

whatsup? · 17-07-2012 01:28AM

robindch wrote: »

the immature intellectual level they're at. If they want to be taken seriously at the adults' table, then they can start playing by the adults' rules.

This kind of attitude really gets on my nerves, to assume people of religious faith are stupid, which is exactly what you are saying is highly insulting and immature.

I believe in God, yes I have no factual proof to prove it to you, but i'm in no way "intellectually immature" as you put it. You're argument equally can't be proven yet do I call you stupid for firmly believing that the whole world and our existence is the result of a set of Godless cosmic consequences?

Some atheist's have this belief that they have somehow reached a higher level of intelligence whereby they know God is false and it's as if they are waiting for the rest of the world to catch up.

It's highly insulting. If you are wish to play by the "adults rules" then may i suggest you include respect in your opinions, which would in my view be rule number one.

17-07-2012 01:53AM

whatsup? wrote: »

This kind of attitude really gets on my nerves, to assume people of religious faith are stupid, which is exactly what you are saying is highly insulting and immature.

I believe in God, yes I have no factual proof to prove it to you, but i'm in no way "intellectually immature" as you put it. You're argument equally can't be proven yet do I call you stupid for firmly believing that the whole world and our existence is the result of a set of Godless cosmic consequences?

Some atheist's have this belief that they have somehow reached a higher level of intelligence whereby they know God is false and it's as if they are waiting for the rest of the world to catch up.

It's highly insulting. If you are wish to play by the "adults rules" then may i suggest you include respect in your opinions, which would in my view be rule number one.

He was not referring to religious people as a whole, just their thoughts and reasoning on the subject of god, the origins of the universe and morals.

Just as you demonstrate by trying to argue that "I just believe it" is a valid argument.

Further, when I've repeatedly tried to get you to answer points which refute it, you simply ignore those points and pretend that they don't exist. This is not a tactic of adult debate.

And why precisely should we respect your belief when (as I gather from your arguments, and you have yet to refute) it is no more logically valid than a belief in fairies or Santa Claus

You may very well be an exceptionally intelligent person who is well versed in many fields. But your arguments and reasoning on the matter of god are childish and irrational.

Turtwig · 17-07-2012 02:08AM

whatsup? wrote: »

This kind of attitude really gets on my nerves, to assume people of religious faith are stupid, which is exactly what you are saying is highly insulting and immature.

I believe in God, yes I have no factual proof to prove it to you, but i'm in no way "intellectually immature" as you put it. You're argument equally can't be proven yet do I call you stupid for firmly believing that the whole world and our existence is the result of a set of Godless cosmic consequences?

Some atheist's have this belief that they have somehow reached a higher level of intelligence whereby they know God is false and it's as if they are waiting for the rest of the world to catch up.

It's highly insulting. If you are wish to play by the "adults rules" then may i suggest you include respect in your opinions, which would in my view be rule number one.

Consider the statement : "The sky is blue."

Imagine you have two identical cave dwellers. They live so far deep underground that neither of them will ever see daylight. One guy believes the sky is blue. The other guy doesn't think it is.

In this case believing the sky to be blue was the correct belief but from the cave dwellers point of view it isn't really wise to persist in arguing the colour of the sky when you have no evidence that the sky exists. Never mind have knowledge of its properties or colours. Obviously the doubter cannot prove that the sky isn't blue but why should he? He's not the one who made up the claim about the sky. Even if 10^80 confined cave dwellers - an impossible number because we have exceeded the total number of electrons in the universe- believed that a sky exists, it still has no bearing on who is holding the most reasonable position. The doubters position only becomes unreasonable when there is ample evidence presented that a sky exists. Until that point in time the two viewpoints do not share equal ground. They simply can't. If you're struggling to accept this, then imagine our cave dwellers are split into various sects who believe that the sky exists but is one of the different colours of the rainbow. Which is the most efficient and accurate way to determine which belief is the most valid?
- Individually disprove each and everyone of them.
- Be sceptical of each and every belief, criticising their beliefs so that they are forced to make better and better arguments* that may one day stand up to scrutiny.

And that's before you even start imagining blue believers who bases their entire life around the sky being blue and use that to try to influence the lives of others.

Also, I never made any comment on the cave dwellers intelligence. Holding a silly belief doesn't mean you're stupid, nor does holding a smart belief make you smart. (In fact, the more I learn about the world the less I believe in stupidity and smartness. It's more an issue of a measure of a person's awareness.) I'll ask you to tell us what you consider constitutes a silly belief or a stupid belief? Or if you consider that there exists such things?

*I should kind of point out here that is kind of the anti-thesis of religious faith. If you're a Christian then you really believe Jesus died on the cross and everything in your life should be predicated by that one sole fact.

Turtwig · 17-07-2012 02:13AM

Wasn't Civ V already on a flash sale?

whatsup? · 17-07-2012 04:18AM

(I would ask everyone to read my whole post before replying, its an answer to everyone who quoted my previous posts

)

There is nothing more i can say on the issue of religious faith really. Once you assume my belief in God is equal to a primitive belief n mythological creatures then the debate is closed. You don't believe based on the fact there is no proof, I believe based on the fact no proof is needed. That's about it. Sounds daft to you but that's life. You search for evidence that can't be found while I need no evidence as faith has already proven it to me.

On the issue of fairies etc all i can say is this. Mythological creatures, unicorns, goblins, Santa Claus, tooth fairy and every other imaginary creature you can think of emerged from stories written by man, read by men, intended for men. They answer questions held by ancient societies as to why the world exists. Why there is something instead of nothing. The world of nature was a dangerous and changeable place so they controlled its characteristics by placing "Gods" at the very heart of what they didn't understand. For example thunder and lightening were powerful and frightening for mankind so they used their limited understanding of the world around them and decided that they were controlled by a "God". Likewise, the ocean of which they knew nothing about was controlled by these peoples by placing a God at the center of it. For now their questions on why their world functioned the way it did was answered by themselves. The unknowns of their existence were controlled by an unknown God.

Skip forward five thousand years to 2012. Our understanding of the universe has advanced remarkably to an extent where by the "Gods" of the ancient worlds can be disregarded and moved into the history books. We have used science to explain what they didn't understand, in essence we have proven their Gods to be untrue.

Unlike the ancient world, we realistically have only one unanswered question today. Why are we here at all? We understand nature, the ocean, the weather moon and stars yet the very basic question of why there is something instead of nothing is unanswerable. So therefore God fills the gap and replaces what we don't understand. The reason we are here is God, his Love, his will etc.

My next point is highly important to my argument.

I am 100 per cent convinced that mankind will never ever understand the reasons behind life. We will never ever know why there is a world, why nature exists, why the cosmos has positioned the earth in such a position as to make our very being possible. I am also 100 per cent convinced that we as a species will continue to grow and understand our surroundings, just in the same way as our ancient societies did. So in time we may understand how and why the human race emerged, how the solar systems developed and how and what sustains them. We may even become advanced to a point of discovering other societies of beings in other parts of our universe.

But the very question that will always remain unanswered, what is the meaning of it all?, is only answered by God, because God provides the ultimate answer that mankind will never figure out.
So we grow, study, equip our brains with knowledge to dissect our universe and figure out the answers and all the while we are eating away at the ultimate question of the meaning of life, which is God.
All our thinking and being leads to God as humans are incapable of understanding what it exactly is. Every shred of the universe has its foundations in God. Everything.

Saint Augustine said "God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. If you understand, you have failed".
When you think about it he is dead right. We will never understand the universe, never understand why we are here, never understand why humans have emerged as the ultimate species, never understand why basic human emotions such as love, anger, hate etc have arrived into our being. Never. We will also never understand God.
And I repeat, I am convinced that humans are completely incapable of understanding why we are here, we are incapable of knowing, so God answers the question we can in no way answer ourselves. God is the ultimate mystery and from him comes the mystery of life.

So that maybe sums up my faith to you. You may say I place God at what I don't understand in the same way ancient Greece placed Poseidon as God of the ocean of which they didn't understand. And you would be right! But it's important to remember none of us understand anything about the nature of our existence, not you, not me, no-one. So all a person of religious faith can be accused of doing is attempting to understand a question that can't be answered.

The problems of the ancient world could and were answered by scientific proof, but the question of life will never ever be realized.

This then brings us to the issue of evidence and proof. You will continue to disregard God as there is no proof he exists. But is there proof anything exists? I exist because you can see and hear me, therefore you realize I am real. You then use the same reasoning to prove God does not exist because can neither see, hear, or touch him. You base life on evidence and fact. If something can be proven to be, then it's real, if not, it's not. But there is no evidence or fact as to why the whole universe exists, yet you would be a fool to say it isn't real.
My opinion on God is similar to that, there is no evidence to show him to be real yet he still is. There is no evidence to show why the amazingness of anything has come into being. Yet we know it has. So similarly there is no evidence or fact to show God.

Belief in the Christian God overwrites every myth such as Poseidon or Zeus as the question we are trying to answer is unanswerable has always been unanswerable and will always be unanswerable. It is NOT the same as the ancient worlds unanswered questions which could ultimately be proven. Mankind will never prove why there is something in place of nothing. Never. God then fills the gap of what it is to be human. All avenues of inquiry into our very being ultimately lead to him. We all search for meaning, God is that meaning. We can't see or feel him or apply our logic to understand him but something as amazing as the human spirit can never be understood, "happy are those who have not seen and yet believe" and that is what faith is.

Overall God provides meaning and an understanding to a question that will never, ever, ever be answered-Why is there life? Only faith can prove him to be true, there is no evidence, similarly there is no evidence to show why we have a universe in the first place. God is the ultimate mystery and you can't prove a mystery. For me, every single avenue of human thinking leads down the long road of the ultimate question of life. Every single thing seeks to answer the unanswerable, so everything in this life leads to God.

17-07-2012 04:39AM

Well that's a long post of nonsense that does not even come close to providing a single answer to any of my questions.

But I do like how this passage:

On the issue of fairies etc all i can say is this. Mythological creatures, unicorns, goblins, Santa Claus, tooth fairy and every other imaginary creature you can think of emerged from stories written by man, read by men, intended for men. They answer questions held by ancient societies as to why the world exists. Why there is something instead of nothing. The world of nature was a dangerous and changeable place so they controlled its characteristics by placing "Gods" at the very heart of what they didn't understand. For example thunder and lightening were powerful and frightening for mankind so they used their limited understanding of the world around them and decided that they were controlled by a "God". Likewise, the ocean of which they knew nothing about was controlled by these peoples by placing a God at the center of it. For now their questions on why their world functioned the way it did was answered by themselves. The unknowns of their existence were controlled by an unknown God.

Exactly describes your god, and why it should be rejected, then your next length of waffle can apply exactly equally as well to every single example you listed there.

The only difference is that your god of the gaps is in a gap you've just declared will never close with no other support other than (again) "you just believe it". Just as I'm sure many people claimed about thunder or the ocean or every single other thing we investigated and found the answer to be not magic.

And you claim that this gap will never be closed even though you clearly display an abject ignorance of current science.
For example:

So in time we may understand how and why the human race emerged, how the solar systems developed and how and what sustains them. We may even become advanced to a point of discovering other societies of beings in other parts of our universe.

We already know the answers to these questions.

And then you are still left with another niggling question you are ignoring:
Why do people still believe in things like fairies and psychics, and yes, even Zeus?
What leads them to believe in something false? How can they have faith in something that doesn't actually exist?
And again the point you don't want to acknowledge: How do you know that the same does not apply to you?

whatsup? · 17-07-2012 04:48AM

King Mob wrote: »

Well that's a long post of nonsense that does not even come close to providing a single answer to any of my questions.

But I do like how this passage:

Exactly describes your god, and why it should be rejected, then your next length of waffle can apply exactly equally as well to every single example you listed there.

The only difference is that your god of the gaps is in a gap you've just declared will never close with no other support other than (again) "you just believe it". Just as I'm sure many people claimed about thunder or the ocean or every single other thing we investigated and found the answer to be not magic.

And you claim that this gap will never be closed even though you clearly display an abject ignorance of current science.
For example:
We already know the answers to these questions.

And then you are still left with another niggling question you are ignoring:
Why do people still believe in things like fairies and psychics, and yes, even Zeus?
What leads them to believe in something false? How can they have faith in something that doesn't actually exist?
And again the point you don't want to acknowledge: How do you know that the same does not apply to you?

Look mate, there is nothing more I can say to you. Don't pick sections of my last post and argue as it all must be read as a whole.

Any question you have can be found in my last (somewhat long) post. It's all in there. If you really want to understand where i'm coming from, read it and re read it again.

Time for bed...

17-07-2012 05:01AM

whatsup? wrote: »

Look mate, there is nothing more I can say to you. Don't pick sections of my last post and argue as it all must be read as a whole.

Any question you have can be found in my last (somewhat long) post. It's all in there. If you really want to understand where i'm coming from, read it and re read it again.

Time for bed...

No, none of the questions I asked have been answered.

You have not pointed to anything that distinguishes your god of the gaps from other gods of the gaps beyond "I just believe it". Insisting you believe something is true without evidence is not an argument.

You have not answered the question about why you think people still currently believe things that are false.

You did not answer the follow up about how you know that the same does not apply to you.

Now if you have answered these specific questions, point out where because I cannot find any part of your posts that address them.

But notice how I was able to address the main points of your long winded post? And notice how they lead back to the questions you've yet to answer?
That's because you need to address them.

old hippy · 17-07-2012 11:17AM

"Once you assume my belief in God is equal to a primitive belief n mythological creatures then the debate is closed. You don't believe based on the fact there is no proof, I believe based on the fact no proof is needed."

So, in a nutshell, people can believe in anything they like because no proof is needed? Awesome.

Kidchameleon · 17-07-2012 06:41PM

Kivaro wrote: »

The basis of your religion is a fairytale that was makey-uppeyed from other 'religions':

Ha!

Kivaro, I seriously face-palmed when I saw your lovely picture! You see I saw the Zeitgeist movies not too long ago and unlike yourself, I did a bit of research into the claims made. I don’t just assume things are true because they are in a movie or because I read it in a book. I suppose you think the Davinci code was accurate or that there are genetically bred dinosaurs running around on an island off the coast of Costa Rica? Anyway, the whole Jesus = Horus BS was started by a guy named Gerald Massey who was an English poet. He also had an interest in Egypt. He made these claims and never had anything to back it up. Peter Joseph (Zeitgeist) has still to this day to cite references to his claims on Christianity, and he has been asked ALLOT. Any fool knows these lads are just trying to make a quick buck of gullible people like yourself. I'd bet my left testicle you don't have any sources to back up 99% of the claims made in that picture

Horus

Born of a virgin

Horus's parents were married. He was conceived beside a river.

Star in the east

There is no star in any of the stories of Horus to announce his birth.

Walked on water

No mention / pictures of Horus walking on water.

Healed the sick / Restored sight

Any religious figure would do that so saying Christianity is a plagiarism because of this is like saying a Ferrari is a copy of a Porsche because they both drive.

Crucified / Dead for 3 days / Resurrected

No stories of any of this happening to Horus.

Mithra

Born of a virgin

There is no mention of a virgin birth in Mithra. A fully-mature Mithra emerged from a rock.

Born on December 25

Many religious festivals were consolidated into one holiday to coincide with the winter solstice. Christmas is only celebrated on December 25th due to this tradition. There is no mention anywhere in the bible that Jesus was born on 25th of December.

Had 12 disciples

Mithra is often depicted next to the twelve zodiac signs but there is no mention of there being twelve disciples. This is just Joseph / Massey playing on peoples gullibility.

Dead for 3 days / Resurrected

Mithras was taken to the afterlife on a chariot whilst still alive. No mention of a death hence no resurrection.

Krishna

Born of a virgin

A virgin birth is never attributed to Krishna and his parents bore seven previous children.

Son of carpenter

Nowhere in the Hindu texts does it say Krishna's father was a carpenter. I beleive he was some sort of judge / law person. His foster-father was a cow-herder.

Resurrected

Thats true but there are many differences between the Christian version and the Hindu version.

Dionysus

Born of a virgin

There are two birth accounts concerning Dionysus (neither implies a virgin birth).

Born on December 25

There is no record of this date being significant for Dionysus.

Traveling teacher

Yep that one is accurate.

Turned water into wine

Nope. Turned things to gold. Filled empty vessels up with wine but never actually turned water to wine.

Called "Holy Child"

I'm sure every holy child would have been called that. :rolleyes:

Sources:

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?id=124&option=com_content&task=view

http://stupidevilbastard.com/2005/01/ending_the_myth_of_horus/

http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html

And feel free to refer to the religious texts in question also.

swampgas · 17-07-2012 06:47PM

whatsup? wrote: »

(I would ask everyone to read my whole post before replying, its an answer to everyone who quoted my previous posts )

There is nothing more i can say on the issue of religious faith really. Once you assume my belief in God is equal to a primitive belief n mythological creatures then the debate is closed. You don't believe based on the fact there is no proof, I believe based on the fact no proof is needed. That's about it. Sounds daft to you but that's life. You search for evidence that can't be found while I need no evidence as faith has already proven it to me.

[ ... ]

First off, I appreciate the effort you put into writing that post. As I am coming at this from a completely different perspective, there are a couple of things I am hoping you can clarify for me:

(1) If evidence is not the reason you believe in God, then can I assume that your faith is basically belief based on "gut feel" ? And that what you feel is correct is what matters, rather than what logic might dictate?

(2) Does it ever concern you that what you believe (based on faith) might be only partly correct, or might in fact be completely wrong? That maybe you should have faith in something slightly different?

swampgas · 17-07-2012 07:22PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I get what your saying ok, there is no proof that any of the religions are true. But then again there is no proof that atheism is correct either. I have no doubt that one day science will prove there is no god, that we will know exactly where we came from, but until that day I'm afraid we have one big thing in common with the religious folk, that being we hold beliefs without any concrete evidence.

A really difficult concept to get across to a big bunch of people with a shared delusion is that they are deluded in the first place.

Down through the ages people have believed a billion different bizarre and superstitious concepts, our brains seem to be hard-wired to err that way. Only relatively recently have we started to figure out what makes our brains work the way they do, and we have learned that it is possible to think more critically.

One reason people believe "makey-uppy" stuff is because lots of other people profess to believe it too. We tend to follow the crowd, ideologically.

The only reason so many people are Catholics in Ireland, is because, well, lots of other Irish people are Catholics. That's it. No other reason.

Religion really is makey-uppy, but because it's associated with all sorts of significant life events - birth, coming of age, marriage, death - people get very defensive when hearing it described as such, as the mere concept that one's religion might be false opens a Pandora's box of difficult questions.

The real battle seems to be to get believers to admit that the burden of proof is theirs. They don't want to know, because they know that proof is impossible, so they simply refuse to accept the burden of proof in the first place.

When someone insists that "you can't prove that God doesn't exist!", they are pointedly refusing to accept the burden of proof, and hope of rational discussion starts to fade.

Kidchameleon · 17-07-2012 07:45PM

swampgas wrote: »

A really difficult concept to get across to a big bunch of people with a shared delusion is that they are deluded in the first place.

Down through the ages people have believed a billion different bizarre and superstitious concepts, our brains seem to be hard-wired to err that way. Only relatively recently have we started to figure out what makes our brains work the way they do, and we have learned that it is possible to think more critically.

One reason people believe "makey-uppy" stuff is because lots of other people profess to believe it too. We tend to follow the crowd, ideologically.

The only reason so many people are Catholics in Ireland, is because, well, lots of other Irish people are Catholics. That's it. No other reason.

Religion really is makey-uppy, but because it's associated with all sorts of significant life events - birth, coming of age, marriage, death - people get very defensive when hearing it described as such, as the mere concept that one's religion might be false opens a Pandora's box of difficult questions.

The real battle seems to be to get believers to admit that the burden of proof is theirs. They don't want to know, because they know that proof is impossible, so they simply refuse to accept the burden of proof in the first place.

When someone insists that "you can't prove that God doesn't exist!", they are pointedly refusing to accept the burden of proof, and hope of rational discussion starts to fade.

Anbody I know who is religious, I know Muslims, Christians and Buddhists, go about their lives and dont give a toss what others believe or dont believe. They dont need to prove anything because they have respect for peoples differences. There was a Jehovas witness at my door preaching to me a few weeks ago, if I had stood there listening to her, she would have had to prove her beliefs to me! The other Jehovah's in the world dont need to prove anything as long as they have respect. A former colleague of mine is Bhuddist, he was trying to help me "find god" one day. I told him to feck off, but he would of had something to prove otherwise, he took the onus on himself that day. The rest of the Buddhists out there dont need to prove anything to me. Now I'm sure I know plenty of atheists who couldnt care less what people do or dont believe, but if any of these atheists want to convince people there is no god, then they bloody well better prove it or else keep their gobs shut.

If your going to be vocal about something, then prove it or don't say anything at all. All this crap trying to turn the proof argument on its head is a cop out, plain and simple.

At the end of the day, neither Atheist's or religious can prove they are right so its really a pointless argument. Its a matter of respect IMHO.

old hippy · 17-07-2012 07:50PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

A former colleague of mine is Bhuddist, he was trying to help me "find god" one day. I told him to feck off, but he would of had something to prove otherwise, he took the onus on himself that day. The rest of the Buddhists out there dont need to prove anything to me..

Buddhism doesn't really do the whole god/s thing, in general. It's more of a philosophy

Wiggles88 · 17-07-2012 07:54PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If your going to be vocal about something, then prove it or don't say anything at all. All this crap trying to turn the proof argument on its head is a cop out, plain and simple.

So if I come across someone who believes Elvis is still alive and living on mars, by your logic I cannot call them out on their bull without evidence that he is not? Atheists are not turning the proof argument on its head, it is you who is doing that by assuming their makey-upy religion is not makey-upy unless we can prove the negative.

swampgas · 17-07-2012 07:58PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

[...] if any of these atheists want to convince people there is no god, then they bloody well better prove it or else keep their gobs shut.

If your going to be vocal about something, then prove it or don't say anything at all. All this crap trying to turn the proof argument on its head is a cop out, plain and simple.

At the end of the day, neither Atheist's or religious can prove they are right so its really a pointless argument. Its a matter of respect IMHO.

Again, the point, which you have managed to miss so spectacularly, is that you cannot prove a negative.

As for respect - you shouldn't be able to use "respect" as a shield to avoid answering difficult questions about your religious beliefs. Not in this forum, anyway.

My mother is Catholic, we discuss religion now and then. We manage to do so respectfully, without either of us having to pretend that we don't think the other person is a little bit insane to believe what they do :-) I.e. we respect the other person, not the other person's beliefs.

joseph brand · 17-07-2012 07:59PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Anbody I know who is religious, I know Muslims, Christians and Buddhists, go about their lives and dont give a toss what others believe or dont believe. They dont need to prove anything because they have respect for peoples differences. There was a Jehovas witness at my door preaching to me a few weeks ago, if I had stood there listening to her, she would have had to prove her beliefs to me! The other Jehovah's in the world dont need to prove anything as long as they have respect. A former colleague of mine is Bhuddist, he was trying to help me "find god" one day. I told him to feck off, but he would of had something to prove otherwise, he took the onus on himself that day. The rest of the Buddhists out there dont need to prove anything to me. Now I'm sure I know plenty of atheists who couldnt care less what people do or dont believe, but if any of these atheists want to convince people there is no god, then they bloody well better prove it or else keep their gobs shut.

If your going to be vocal about something, then prove it or don't say anything at all. All this crap trying to turn the proof argument on its head is a cop out, plain and simple.

At the end of the day, neither Atheist's or religious can prove they are right so its really a pointless argument. Its a matter of respect IMHO.

Atheism is older than christianity. Christianity arrived with no real proof, just stories and fancy tales. This is why those who talk about their bearded father figure in the sky should prove he exists or, as you put it, 'keep their gobs shut'.

The one thing you said that makes even a lick of sense is the fact that it's a 'pointless argument'. This is often the case with the poor unfortunate craters who are hard-wired believers, due to being indoctrinated since childhood. Indoctrination wouldn't be anywhere near as successful if started at 18 years of age.

Just a thought...

Comments