What till you do your last hours alive? :D
I marvel at all the amazing ways people can twist scripture.
We're all going to look pretty stupid if they're right. Haha. Yep... pretty stupid. ::)
I hate debating scripture.
I would play piano.
A vulcano in Iceland have had a minor burst, and I've cought a small cold. But that's it.
Anyone else feeling anything?
We won't, since the Bible is not true.
Judgement Day is subject to a Super Injunction here in England, so we won't get to hear of it until it is too late.Oh, yes, we will - via Twitbook or some other "networking" facility...
Who gave you the authority to determine whether the Bible is "true"?
What evidence do you have?
And what does "the Bible is not true" even mean?
And you call yourself intelligent? Don't be so full of your self.
You think you're so intelligent, but you know what? You're not.
Intelligent people don't make idiotic comments such as "the Bible is not true" without any evidence.
I guarantee you, there are many Christians who are much, much more intelligent than you.
So seriously, just GTFO and stop acting as if you are some authority that can judge without reason or logic.
I would feel tempted to respond in length whether the bible is "true" but this all has been discussed in other Christian threads, so no point repeating what has been said :P
There will be trouble ahead...........That's it - bring in Irving Berlin; not a bad idea, actually, considering the "progress" of the thread to date...
Anyhoo, I started thinking a bit, since I was in the car with somebody talking about the rapture, and started asking a couple of questions that I haven't thought of before. I do wonder what the point of the rapture is, exactly. I mean, what's God supposedly thinking? I don't claim to understand everything the rapture is supposed to be (and I think I understand that different people think it's different things), but my fundamental question is based on it seeming to me that whatever the rapture is supposed to be is basically the same thing as --to those who believe in the rapture-- what is believed happens to everybody when we die anyway. We are judged and sent to heaven or hell ... right? So, I do wonder, what's the point of the rapture at all when, if we just lived out our lives as normal, we'd supposedly all face that judgement anyway? And, if it's something different, like earth becomes a fantastic place to be ... what about all of those people in times before us who faithfully believed in the rapture, lived their lives accordingly, died and got sent to heaven ... and then the rapture comes on earth and, what, they are just missing the party?
I would not waste any headspace on this, music is far more important.Well, it's more than just that, of course, although that's one freqeuntly encountered example. One problem, however, is that we have so much music that retains indelible connections with such thinking and such traditions, from before Palestrina through Byrd, on via Bach right through to the present day, some of which we would surely not want to be without.
I am uncomfortable with anything that appears to give favourable treatment to people who believe in some celestial entity and his son.
Well, yesterday evening I had a little bit of a "rapture discussion" with a friend of mine who feels very passionately about the rapture. My friend was upset because she felt that this individual, and "cooks" like him, give all of Christianity a bad name. So, when somebody who is off in his own world predicts the rapture and it doesn't happen, then everybody thinks all of Christianity is wrong for believing in the rapture at all, when, as my friend stated, the Bible clearly states that no man knoweth the day ... etc..
Anyhoo, I started thinking a bit, since I was in the car with somebody talking about the rapture, and started asking a couple of questions that I haven't thought of before. I do wonder what the point of the rapture is, exactly. I mean, what's God supposedly thinking? I don't claim to understand everything the rapture is supposed to be (and I think I understand that different people think it's different things), but my fundamental question is based on it seeming to me that whatever the rapture is supposed to be is basically the same thing as --to those who believe in the rapture-- what is believed happens to everybody when we die anyway. We are judged and sent to heaven or hell ... right? So, I do wonder, what's the point of the rapture at all when, if we just lived out our lives as normal, we'd supposedly all face that judgement anyway? And, if it's something different, like earth becomes a fantastic place to be ... what about all of those people in times before us who faithfully believed in the rapture, lived their lives accordingly, died and got sent to heaven ... and then the rapture comes on earth and, what, they are just missing the party?
I am uncomfortable with anything that appears to give favourable treatment to people who believe in some celestial entity and his son.
Thal
A better reason? From what I can tell... It's the behavior right now. Pay in advance, even if there is nothing on the end later.... You go to heaven or hell. One or the other. It's either going to be great or terrible. If you're a good person, you better do a little better in order to deserve going somewhere great. If you're bad, you can still change. And of course no one wants to go to hell... for eternity. *Bob wonders if that's a little bit harsh considering maybe 80 years of life compared to 'forever.'* So the bottom line is you better be good and keep being good otherwise you might not go to heaven.
Define "authority".By authority, I was referring to the fact that you often state your personal opinions as if they were facts wihout any evidence.
Tons of evidence.Saying "Tons of evidence" doesn't cut it. That's not evidence at all. You won't be freed from blame if you said you had "tons of evidence" in court.
That its authors were not guided by the God the book itself promotes. Also, why are you condemning my post, when you don't even know what its claim is?It's not that I don't know what you are claiming. It's simply that they way you've made the claim is ridiculous and illogical; a physical object cannot be "not true". It simply shows how little thought and critical thinking you put into your posts.
Define "full of oneself". BTW, who gave you authority to tell me how I should behave?I don't know why you have that in quotes; I never said "full of oneself".
And your evidence for this and your next sentence is?So are you saying you don't claim to be intelligent? Because I'm not going to go dig up posts from the Sorabji thread for you. Go read back yourself if you forgot your own claims. The evidence for saying that you aren't intelligent is in the your plethora of idiotic posts with no substance or proof, such as the first two posts in this thread.
So what do they do? Do they include 100-page essays in every single post they write? Just like you?I don't claim myself to be intelligent. In fact, if I were even a little bit intelligent, I wouldn't waste my time arguing with the likes of you. Also, I have never written a 100-page essay, let alone "in every single post". False accusations leading to an ad hominem attack isn't a very effective form of argument, either.
BTW, strictly speaking, a statement can not be idiotic and substantiated at the same time.I'm not sure what you're saying with the first sentence. Are you trying to claim that your statement on the Bible being "not true" is substantiated? If so, you're even less intelligent than I thought. Up until now, you've not even given one piece of evidence that the bible is not true. Do you even know the definition of true?
So what? Intelligence does not equal rationality. See https://psychcentral.com/lib/2010/what-intelligence-tests-miss/. And, while I'm not entirely sure about it, your statement here smacks of a logical fallacy known as "argument from authority".
Reported.Good for you; although I'm not sure what you would be reporting about; but that's none of my business anyway.
Interesting! You said I'm not intelligent, claimed I'm full of myself, and deemed my comment idiotic; this is another example of how you run around condemning people and making judgments about them, while claiming no one is entitled to do the same.
I have read in the morning paper that Harold Camping was "unavailable for comment".Perhaps he was the only one to be raptured? :D:D:D
How strange.
Thal
Perhaps he was the only one to be raptured? :D:D:D
Yeah, but if people really thought about it, I mean *really* actually thought about it, they would realize that Jolly Old Saint Nick is already keeping everybody inline with his naughty and nice list ... I mean, you either get a gift or a lump of coal with that. So, that's pretty important.
Santa Claus only gives coal. That's the worst it gets.
That lump of coal isn't looking so bad though. In fact, if you're really bad, you'd end up with a pile of coal and could use that for fuel. Not so bad, eh? Maybe Santa could bring some other types of fuel like gasoline or natural gas gas. Or solar panels or something. And really... Where is Santa Claus getting all that coal? Not everyone is on the Nice list. There must be a significant amount of children on the Naughty list. That requires a lot of coal -- Where's all that coal coming from?
I think that instead of arrogantly mocking religion like this, you should try to get to know it a bit better first. It's really sad how many people think they know everything about religion, when they really know nothing at all. Even most "Christians" never actually read the bible from start to finish, both the old and new testaments.One does not have to be a non-Christian to recognise that, whatever the extent or otherwise of the actual or alleged veracity of this, that or the other part of the Bible, the Bible itself is, as I have said before, an incomplete (as we have it) literary work written by a number of authors without overall editorial control over a period of several decades some two millennia ago within the social, cultural, scientific, &c. milieu of the Middle East of that era, it vacillates between historical chronicling and literary fantasy and, since it was completed, it has been translated and retranslated into all manner of languages all of which, like the language in which it was originally written, have metamorphosed beyond all recognition, just as has that social, cultural, scientific &c. milieu; the Bible can therefore be realistically accepted only when the recipient is duly mindful of all those caveats and their significance. To state this is by no means to "mock" any religion or indeed to undermine the value of the Bible - merely to try to put into some kind of sensible perspective.
It's really frustrating to see how ignorance leads people to give outrageously stupid examples to attack religion, when those examples don't even reflect what the religion teaches or how it works.
Do you guys even know what Christianity is?
Once in grade 8 during my social studies class, we were asked to do a religion project with different groups doing different religions. Of the choices, there was christianity, jehovah's witnesses, and catholicism. What? I tried to explain to the teacher (who was a christian) that both jehovah's witnesses and catholics are actually christians as well, but he just won't listen.
Christianity doesn't teach that anyone who donates to the Church will be saved and anyone who doesn't will go to hell... that is your own delusional thinking about what you think it is.
I'm not here to teach christianity, but before you make ridiculous accusations and attacks, actually learn about what the religion teaches. This doesn't only go towards christianity, but any religion.
Remember, it takes faith to believe that ther is no god as well. It takes faith to believe in "science",. And remember, what you think is "science" may not actually be "science" at all.
actually learn about what the religion teachesBut since each and every religion teaches whatever it teaches based on a false assumption (the presence of a higher being giving down that what is teached), one might conclude that each religion is basically self-delusional. And mind you, I have studied religion, and was born and raised and actually still live in what counts as the Bible Belt in The Netherlands.
I ... actually still live in what counts as the Bible Belt in The Netherlands.
all best,
gep
Really? Wow! Where might that be?Ah, just because he was Scottish? But why him over and above other Biblical translators, especially as the "King James Bible" was merely named after him rather than actually translated by him?
And Alistair, how about some credit for King James?
Judgement Day is subject to a Super Injunction here in England, so we won't get to hear of it until it is too late.Oh, yes you will - and if not on Twitbook you'll read all about it in a Scottish newspaper where the laws governing their journalists are by no means all subject to the English jurisdicature.
But since each and every religion teaches whatever it teaches based on a false assumption (the presence of a higher being giving down that what is teached), one might conclude that each religion is basically self-delusional. And mind you, I have studied religion, and was born and raised and actually still live in what counts as the Bible Belt in The Netherlands.Proof? You can't just say it was based on a FALSE assumption if you have no proof. At most you can say that it has no evidence. And it's not an assumption, more of a claim. A claim without evidence. But you can't say it's 100% false.
It is always illuminating to see the vehement attacks from religious people du moment someone states he/she does reject any or all religion. Atheists are usually, if indeed not always, rather more acceptive of the fact that someone else is religious... The morale of "Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself" is something that doesn't figure much in any religion, and for obvious reasons.
I would add that most Christians are not Christians and neither would want to be (i.e. live like a faithfull Jew lived 2000 years ago)
all best,
gep
It is always illuminating to see the vehement attacks from religious people du moment someone states he/she does reject any or all religion.Atheists are usually, if indeed not always, rather more acceptive of the fact that someone else is religious...
Proof? You can't just say it was based on a FALSE assumption if you have no proof. At most you can say that it has no evidence. And it's not an assumption, more of a claim. A claim without evidence. But you can't say it's 100% false.You just cannot seem to travel more than a couple of millimetres without getting hung up on the notions of attacking and being attacked, can you? How very sad, when in almost every case it is so signally inappropriate!
By the way, I am NOT christian or religious. I do believe that there's a god, but nothing more.
I findquite exactly just the opposite. You are vehemently attacking all those who believe in a religion so bluntly without proof or evidence. How many religious people are attacking you? None so far.
The fact is, many, if not most athiests think that they are somehow superior to religious people, and think that because they believe in "science" that they are right. And they always laugh and ridicule religious people. I don't think that's very accepting. I haven't seen many religious people laugh and ridicule athests; they might try to convince you to believe god, but they won't outright laugh at you or attack you, unless you did the same to their religion beforehand.
@Ahinton: If you were trying to tell me something, perhaps you should write in English next timeWhat I wrote was by no means intended for your sole benefit but, since you have raised this question, pray tell us all in what language you believe it to have been written...
From the little I could understand, I don't think the bible is as bad as you think. There wouldn't be so many professors studying it if it had absolutely no credibility. Sure, the languages have changed overtime, but there are many people who study ancient languages. Just because we don't speak that way now doesn't mean no one understand those languages. These people can then translate for a some-what accurate reflection of the original text. And many of the original texts have been found, like the dead-sea scroll, so I think the translations would be fairly accurate. Of course they always contain their biases, but for the most part, it is a well-written book.I didn't say that the Bible was or is "bad"; I merely pointed out the various caveats that need to be borne in mind by everyone from Biblical scholars to casual readers when it is being read, in terms of the conclusions that might be arrived at from reading its various chapters as we currently have it.
You just cannot seen to travel more than a couple of millimetres withough getting hung up on the notions of attacking and being attacked, can you? How very sad, when in almost every case it is so signally inappropriate!If you only read the post from the person I was quoting from, he was he one who brought up "vehement attacks", not me.
If you only read the post from the person I was quoting from, he was he one who brought up "vehement attacks", not me.I've read it all and,as a consequence, am only too well aware of who brought up what and when; since I've noted your having raised the spectre of "attacks" on several past occasions in various different contexts, I have no reason to change my mind on this now.
Whether it's appropriate or not is not for you to say, but certainly your use of the word "seen" after "cannot" is inappropriate.It was a typo for "seem", which it now is; apologies for any confusion.
Whatever, there is no point in arguing with a hollow shell that's nothing but a dictionary with no ability for critical thinking.I have no idea what you're talking about here, but getting paranoid about "attacks" - as you seem to have a habit of doing - is hardly the most sensible or convincing manner in which to set about conducting a legitimate and valid argument about anything in any event.
I've read it all and,as a consequence, am only too well aware of who brought up what and when; since I've noted your having raised the spectre of "attacks" on several past occasions in various different contexts, I have no reason to change my mind on this now.Great, but perhaps you should explain what exactly a "withough" is before you put your case to rest.
It was a typo for "seem", which it now is; apologies for any confusion.
I have no idea what you're talking about here, but getting paranoid about "attacks" - as you seem to have a habit of doing - is hardly the most sensible or convincing manner in which to set about conducting a legitimate and valid argument about anything in any event.
I rest my case.
Best,
Alistair
You just cannot seem to travel more than a couple of millimetres withough getting hung up on the notions of attacking and being attacked, can you? How very sad, when in almost every case it is so signally inappropriate!
I would wave next time, or throw something at him to get his attention. I am sure his hearing has gotten even worse, if that's possible.
You can't just say it was based on a FALSE assumption if you have no proof. At most you can say that it has no evidenceBut neither can you say that if a kid tells you he got presents from Santa he is basing himself on a false asumption (i.e. the assumption that Santa is real and giving presents), for you cannot prove Sanat does not exist.
By the way, I am NOT christian or religious. I do believe that there's a god, but nothing more.I think that sentence is at least partly paradoxal.
You are vehemently attacking all those who believe in a religion so bluntlyErr, what?? I do not attack anyone! Rather, you own personality seems extremely fragile! Anyone should be free to believe whatever they wish to believe; I am totally for the freedom of religion. Fact is that most religious people are basically for the freedom of their religion, but less so (if not even opposed to) that same freedom for other's.
that because they believe in "science" that they are rightI certainly believe in the scientific method, yes. Facts first, explanation later, based upon known facts. Doing so, I believe I may be wrong, or have incomplete knowledge. As opposed to quite a large fraction (at least) of religious people, who are always Right, and have all the Answers.
And they always laugh and ridicule religious people. I don't think that's very accepting. I haven't seen many religious people laugh and ridicule athests; they might try to convince you to believe god, but they won't outright laugh at you or attack you, unless you did the same to their religion beforehand.Really?....
Of course they always contain their biases, but for the most part, it is a well-written bookSo is Lord of the Rings. Your point being?
perhaps you should explain what exactly a "withough" is before you put your case to rest.It is, as well you know, a typo for "without" and, as such, requires no article, definite or indefinite, before it as you appear to imply - and it took you long enough to find, did it not?! I would be most surprised if you actually needed an "explanation" but, now that you have one, said case remains rested (as previously).
But neither can you say that if a kid tells you he got presents from Santa he is basing himself on a false asumption (i.e. the assumption that Santa is real and giving presents), for you cannot prove Santa does not exist.But surely he does exist! I wrote to him only recently and received his response!
Over the many millennia that humanity has been inventing religion (basically since the time of the cave paitings, but probably long before that), ther have been thousands of different belief systems, each of which has had its factions and groups, each of which evolved over time, and each of which has the only, the whole, the indisputable, the unquestionable and certainly the indubitable Truth. Basic logical reasoning would indicate that the chances of any one of them being true while all the others are partly or wholly wrong is, let me put it mildly, to be considered at least tentatively doubtful.Indeed. That said, humanity has been inventing music for at least as long if not longer, yet the absence of factions and groups until relatively recently has meant that the problem doesn't apply here...
I think that sentence is at least partly paradoxical.That's because it is; it's hard to imagine how someone can believe in God without being religious, but perhaps o_o knows something that the rest of us do not...
Err, what?? I do not attack anyone! Rather, you own personality seems extremely fragile!As a rule, one has only to submit the slightest and mildest challenge to anything written by o_o for accusations of attack being brought out of his defensive armoury; there have been several previous examples, as I wrote earlier.
Anyone should be free to believe whatever they wish to believe; I am totally for the freedom of religion.Which means that you can believe in J S Bach as most of the rest of us do!
Fact is that most religious people are basically for the freedom of their religion, but less so (if not even opposed to) that same freedom for others'....which reminds me of Sorabji's definition of Fascism as anyone else's Fascism other than one's own...
I certainly believe in the scientific method, yes. Facts first, explanation later, based upon known facts. Doing so, I believe I may be wrong, or have incomplete knowledge. As opposed to quite a large fraction (at least) of religious people, who are always Right, and have all the Answers.Sadly, such arrogance of thought is by no means confined to religious people!...
Your point being?You are assumping that there is one, then?...
Addendum 2: the Dutch Minister of Internal Affairs recently stated that "the increase of anti-semitism is caused by the secularisation". Which I would consider a slight misjudgement both of history and of present-day factuality. (Anti-semitism is increasing in The Netherlands, but almost entirely in the Islamic part of the populace).As a matter of interest, do you sense a parallel increase of anti-Islamic feeling amongst the Jewish community in the Netherlands? Anyway, was anti-semitism in 1930s/40s Gerrmany an inevitable and sole consequence of "secularisation"? The question neither needs nor deserves an answer, does it?!...
That said, humanity has been inventing music for at least as long if not longer, yet the absence of factions and groups until relatively recently has meant that the problem doesn't apply here...Well, thankfully there are some things that make humanity not an entire failure...
Which means that you can believe in J S Bach as most of the rest of us do!At least His writings are timeless, ever-new, inspiring, comforting, uplifing, strenghtening, etc etc etc...
Sadly, such arrogance of thought is by no means confined to religious people!...Sadly true. The religious way of thinking is basically human, and not confined to specific religions. One need only hear the average politician speak for a few minutes to know the truth of your remark. Or the famous "man in the street" with an opinion about somtehing he hasn't got a clue about nor is interested to get one.
As a matter of interest, do you sense a parallel increase of anti-Islamic feeling amongst the Jewish community in the Netherlands?Not to my knowledge. I'd think that an increase of simillar intensity would have shown, though...
was anti-semitism in 1930s/40s Gerrmany an inevitable and sole consequence of "secularisation"?How about most of history? The Nazi hunt for Jews was the most recent huge hate wave, but do not forget what happened, for ex, in the whole of Europe during the periods of plague-epidemics. Which, also, is just an example. And I understand that people like the Klu Klux Klan are intensly religious.
But neither can you say that if a kid tells you he got presents from Santa he is basing himself on a false asumption (i.e. the assumption that Santa is real and giving presents), for you cannot prove Sanat does not exist.
Over the many millennia that humanity has been inventing religion (basically since the time of the cave paitings, but probably long before that), ther have been thousands of different belief systems, each of which has had its factions and groups, each of which evolved over time, and each of which has the only, the whole, the undisputable, the unquestionable and certainly the undoubtable Truth. Basic logical reasoning would indicate that the chances of any one of them being true while all the others are partly or wholly wrong is, let me put it mildly, to be considered at least tentativly doubtful.Your "basic logical reasoning" fails on so many levels;
I think that sentence is at least partly paradoxal.If that's what you like to think. But again, believing that there is no god takes just as much faith as believing in a god.
Err, what?? I do not attack anyone! Rather, you own personality seems extremely fragile! Anyone should be free to believe whatever they wish to believe; I am totally for the freedom of religion. Fact is that most religious people are basically for the freedom of their religion, but less so (if not even opposed to) that same freedom for other's.Again, you were the one who brought up "vehement attacks", not me. You can claim whatever you want, but it is a fact that you said religion is based on a false assumption (accusation without proof) and that it is self-delusional. What kinds of "vehement attacks" have religious people made worse than your comments?
I certainly believe in the scientific method, yes. Facts first, explanation later, based upon known facts. Doing so, I believe I may be wrong, or have incomplete knowledge. As opposed to quite a large fraction (at least) of religious people, who are always Right, and have all the Answers.What are facts? How do you obtain facts first? Do you really think that is what the scientific method is about? Go search up Dr. Michio Kaku. Listen to some of his physics lectures. You'll realize that real scientists rarely use the scientific method, if ever. Believe in the scientific method? Don't make me laugh. Believing in the scientific method without knowing its limitations is just as bad as believing in religion.
Really?....Yes, really. If you think otherwise, you either have a really bad case of selective memory or a really bad case of selective reading. Just look in this thread alone; how many people have ridiculed religion? How many religious people have ridiculed athiests?
So is Lord of the Rings. Your point being?My point was that what ahinton said about the bible does not undermine its value.
You've yet to give any evidence that the bible, or indeed any religion is based on a false assumption.I would not like to say that everything in the Bible, or of any religion, is wrong, just that the basic assumption (the existence of a God) is flase. This based on the total and utter lack of even the slightest shred of evidence for the existence of a God.
In fact, it models science more than it does religion; the kid sees evidence that he has received presents on december 25th, thus he incorrectly deduces that Santa gave him the presents.Sante: behave in a certain way according to given rules, and in the end Santa will decide if you get presents or not.
You're assuming that all religions are invented.At least you get some things correctly understood...
For example, if there are 1,000,000 balls in a bucket numbered from 1 to 1,000,000, what are the chances that you'll pick ball number 1? Not very high. But that doesn't mean you won't pick up any ball, simply because the chances for any single ball are low. Understand? Besides, what if I told you that ball number 1 is bigger than the rest? What are the chances of getting it now?But you can prove the existence of that ball no. 1 by searching through them until you find it. You cannot search through all religions until you find the true one. If I'm wrong there, I'd be happy to read your evidence for the truth of any one religion.
Picking a religion isn't like a lottery ticket, you can have evidence that one is more likely than another.Please provide that evidence.
You fail to realize that believing that there is NO GOD takes faith as wellOf course it is a position of faith. And?
there is no evidence or proof that there is no godAnd? You cannot prove that there is no Santa Claus either.
you were the one who brought up "vehement attacks", not me.You are quite blind to your own writings it seems. I disagree with you, if that is a "vehement attack' to you, so be it. Apparently you were raised in North Korea...
Believing in the scientific method without knowing its limitations is just as bad as believing in religion.I am quite aware of "knowing the limitations", it's one of the things I LIKE about science.
They think that to be scientific is to not believe in god.Wrong on my part at least. Being scientific means asking for at least some indications that anything you state is true. There are no, I repeat no, indications whatsoever as far as I know that there exists a God. Hence I cannot do anything but reject the notion of a God.
If god exists and wants some people to know the truth,Which would be so very easy indeed for God, yet he doesn't do so.
I would wave next time, or throw something at him to get his attention. I am sure his hearing has gotten even worse, if that's possible.
Since there's no way to convince arrogantly stubborn people anything,Yes, you have made me quite aware of that...
I was trying to tell people to stop mocking and attacking religion/religious people especially if you're ignorant about what they believe in.Indeed it is wise to try and understand other people's beliefs. I would recomend it to you.
Since you believe in freedom of religionI do. I fully belief that everybody should be free to have his own faith, and bring it to expression insofar it is applied to him/her. I do not belief that freedom of religion should go so far as to tell other people how they should live accoring to anyone else's faith (as in 'my religion tells me you should, as a woman, wear a head scarf'). I also do fully believe in freedom of speech. Which means that you are free to believe whatever you wish to believe, and everybody else is free to agree or disagree.
surely you will agree with my statement? Then why are you even arguing with me?I am as free to argue with you as you are to argue with me. From what you write in this thread and others, it seems you feel that even the slightest indication of disagreement with you is to be considered a 'vehement attack'. You will need to do quite some mental growing to get rid of that stance, and if not I fear your life may get complicated and difficult. Something I would not like to happen. But really, you do need to learn than in the real world people may disagree with you, and do so quite harshly. And not all will display the kind of patience and good manners so far displayed to you...
What can I say?Far too much, as evidenced by the remainder of your post which I will not waste valuable forum space by quoting here.
Far too much, as evidenced by the remainder of your post which I will not waste valuable forum space by quoting here.If you would not like to waste valuable forum space, please, stop posting.
...(...yawn...)...
Best,
Alistair
If you would not like to waste valuable forum space, please, stop posting....(...zzz...)...
Yeah, my Santy post was only partial mock and then mostly just for fun. I actually didn't mean everything I put in that as a tie to religion, but just got into "story telling" mode and went with it. Some people do actually think of the Bible as a story and nothing more ... well, that's not what I am trying to say when I said I went into "story telling" mode and went with it. :-* Honestly. :D
Okay, but seriously, I am actually not an atheist. But, I have almost never found that individuals start a discussion on religion because they want to change anything about the way they believe, or are interested in what other people believe. Generally, there is no interest in group consensus, but in personal conviction, and "discussions" really are more about expressing one's own thoughts and opinions and that's it.
*goes to pray*
Anyone else getting the deja vu vibe??
What can I say?You must be every diaper manifacturer's wet dream...
I find it funny how gep continues with the plethora of ad hominem accusations without any bit of evidence whatsoever, other than his own delusional thinkings, when he accuses (again, without any evidence whatsoever) that others are delusional. LOL. I really feel sorry for you, gep.
Sure, you have the right to argue, it's not like I'm stopping you. But what are you arguing for? Just for the sake of telling everyone how stubbornly ignorant you are? How unaccepting of religion you are? How you feel superior to all religious people?
I always welcome opinions that differ from mine, however, they need to be substantiated with evidence and logic. If you just say "the Bible is not true", or "religions are based on a false assumption", I'm afraid that doesn't cut it.
It's not about not accepting different opinions, it's about showing how flawed these people who believe themselves to be so intelligent are.
PS:
GJ for putting your own words into quotes; that's not gonna fool anyone. You were the one who brought up "vehement attacks", own up to it. Do a quick ctrl + f search if you are intelligent enough to know how, and see who was the first to bring it up.
Now that is an ad hominem attack.Ad hominem or ad infant...oh, never mind!
ad infantAd parvulum vexare, strictly speaking...
Ad parvulum vexare, strictly speaking...Indeed so; I cut short the word that I used as a means of cutting off the sentence for the purposes of conveying appropriate boredom with the subject...
As long as the world remains in such a state where people obtain happiness by harming and hurting others as opposed to helping others, I doubt we're that far off from an "apocalyse".Since some people unfortunately appear to have thrived on doing just that since time immemorial or earlier and and have continued to do so until now without the world coming to an end as a consequence, your assumption that we're not "that far off from an apocalypse" would appear to be entirely unfounded.
But since each and every religion teaches whatever it teaches based on a false assumption (the presence of a higher being giving down that what is teached), one might conclude that each religion is basically self-delusional. And mind you, I have studied religion, and was born and raised and actually still live in what counts as the Bible Belt in The Netherlands.
And why is it a false assumption? because it sounds ridiculous? it is unscientific? it sounds funny? it is based on faith? it is superstition? that promoting the good side of man, loving your neighbors as you love yourself, helping the poor, sharing your wealth and blessings etc. .... as taught by a higher being, entity, spirit, conscience, father or god figure ... is delusional?In the absence of incontrovertible evidence of such a "higher being", the answer would appear to be yes - at least to those who, in said absence, do not happen instead to take the existence of such a being upon trust - and if not actually "delusional", then at the very lest questionable; furthermore, it is unreasonable to assume that "the good side of man" (as - and in the ways that - you describe it above) is not something by which human beings could live of their own volition without having necessarily to be "taught" those ways of behaviour by some "higher being" (of the existence of which/whom there is no hard evidence)?
that promoting the good side of man, loving your neighbors as you love yourself, helping the poor, sharing your wealth and blessings etc. .... as taught by a higher being, entity, spirit, conscience, father or god figure
In the absence of incontrovertible evidence of such a "higher being", the answer would appear to be yes - at least to those who, in said absence, do not happen instead to take the existence of such a being upon trust - and if not actually "delusional", then at the very lest questionable; furthermore, it is unreasonable to assume that "the good side of man" (as - and in the ways that - you describe it above) is not something by which human beings could live of their own volition without having necessarily to be "taught" those ways of behaviour by some "higher being" (of the existence of which/whom there is no hard evidence)?One of the consequences of the idea that "the good side of Man" is/must be "taught" from a higher being is that someone without a religion therefor has no moral. I have quite often been accused of that myself. I would say that it exactly the realisation that there either is no god, or at least not the slightes shred of even the most vague indication that there might be a god makes for a higher moral, for without a god there is no reason or justification to amend the things cited as "the good side of Man". Such as "Love thy neighbour", which is usually amended to something like "Love thy neighbour (unless, of course, that neighbour is of another religion, a woman not knowing her place, gay, not paying enough to the Messengers of God, of the wrong colour, etc etc.)". Or "share you wealth (mainly and formostly with thy religious leaders)". One has only to casually look over Man's history (or even present day behaviour) to see that most of the atrocities great and small perpetraited are either religion based or at least condoned. One may look at the position of women in the world, or the reasons why quite a few wars are started (and superiority thinking for any reason is in fact "religious", if one defines religion as a faith in a superior being includes oneself as that superior being. As in Americans are better than all others, whites are better than blacks, men are better than women etc., Muslims are better than Christians, Christians are better than Muslims, and so forth).
Best,
Alistair
And why is it a false assumptionBecause simple logic reasoning brings at least me to the conclusion that if there is not the slightest hint of verifiable evidence for any of the gods man has worshipped over the eons, then the cahnces of there actually being a god are to be considered essentially zero. Moreover, the fact that most, if not all, gods Man has worshiped over the eons show a remarkable or even scary similarity with the worst of Man (violent, arbitrary, wrathfull, incosistend, untrustworthy, obessed with sex, and so on and so forth), the conclusion must be that gods are man made, not the other way round
promoting the good side of man, loving your neighbors as you love yourself, helping the poor, sharing your wealth and blessings etc. (...) is delusional?Far from it, the good side of Man needs quite a bit of promoting, actually. If your faith promotes you in all that you name, I can only rejoice your actions. It is just that these things are, to me at least, obvious if one wants to be a human being worthy of existing. It is just that human behaviour (for good or bad) does not prove (or need, or is excused by) the existence of any higher being.
the conclusion must be that gods are man made, not the other way roundMaybe they are made each other? God made us existent, knowers but knowledgeless, and we made Him partly existent from our knowledgelessly. The thing is the more we know of the reality is the more we destroy from our God's essence concept (secularization). The final point would be that we know everything about reality and God has no place in our knowledge, so God doesn't exist as we have made him. But I don't share this opinion:
Because simple logic reasoning brings at least me to the conclusion that if there is not the slightest hint of verifiable evidence for any of the gods man has worshipped over the eons, then the cahnces of there actually being a god are to be considered essentially zero..... gep(underscoring mine). You may be right, BUT may I just say that the total absence of verifiable evidence does not automatically infer a falsehood. It may just be that the means or instruments used in the investigation are inadequate, the data is insufficient, the mind set is not broad or open enough, the conclusions are in error...etc. Just like the question of life in other planets or aliens ... there is no verifiable evidence, YET the arguments for their existence is so compelling because of the innumerable galaxies and planets and maybe universes out there where surely there would be millions if not billions of earth-like planets so conducive to the development of life as we know it. To many people the arguments for the existence of a higher being, a supreme being or god is just as compelling.
But since each and every religion teaches whatever it teaches based on a false assumption (the presence of a higher being giving down that what is teached), one might conclude that each religion is basically self-delusional.- which now turns out to be a personal opinion. It is such a general sweeping statement ... each and every religion teaches .... (therefore) each religion is self-delusional. The false assumptions of such a sweeping statement becomes immediately obvious.
In the absence of incontrovertible evidence of such a "higher being", the answer would appear to be yes - at least to those who, in said absence, do not happen instead to take the existence of such a being upon trust - and if not actually "delusional", then at the very lest questionable; furthermore, it is unreasonable to assume that "the good side of man" (as - and in the ways that - you describe it above) is not something by which human beings could live of their own volition without having necessarily to be "taught" those ways of behaviour by some "higher being" (of the existence of which/whom there is no hard evidence)?
Best,
Alistair
"the Bible is not true" because (most of?) its fundamental claims (age of the earth, how man and animals came into existence) have been proven false by science.This is actually false. I don't want to go into the truthfulness of the bible, but this is actually false. It's sad how many people believe this and think they're scientific.
/thread
Just because religion is not science doesn't mean it's wrong.Of course not. One cannot prove the existence of love by measuring it with a tape. BUT one can prove the xistence of love by watching people interact. Science (or at least the scientific method) is that claims made are to be substanciated in some way. This need not be showing the actual thing, but at least some indications that a claim might be true are nessecary. As in
The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testabilityFor example, most of the extrasolar planets so far detected have not been seen, but their presence has been detected by the influence they have on their star. The existence of such a planet in inferred because all other current explanations for the behavior of the star have been ruled out. This is testabillity. However, sometimes it happens that another investigator finds out that their is or might be another explanation for the behavior of the star, and then the planets may turn out not to be real. This is falsabillity. So other ways of trying to detect that planet may be tried (such as trying to find its infrared signal, if the planets is close enough to the star). If these methods fail, the claim of the existence of that planet is withdrawn. This is refutabillity.
At the same time, just because religion isn't falsifiable doesn't make it false.It makes it suspicious at the very least.
You believe in Science? Let's do a thought-experiment.A most excellent example! One can test your experiment by opening the box, and see if the cat is alive or not. So you can know the truth of both the posibillities. It would be nice to have a test that simple to test if there is a god or not...
Let's put a cat in a box, along with a geiger counter and a piece of radioactive substance, such that after an hour, there is exactly 50% chance that the radioactive substance will set off the geiger counter. If the counter is set off, a hammer then breaks a small flask containing hydrocyanic acid, and the cat dies. If the counter is not set off, nothing happens.
After an hour, is the cat dead or alive?
You believe in Science?I think I already said I believe in the scientific method. Which is something else.
Show me the evidence of m-branes and p-branes. The evidence for string field theory. The evidence for chaos causing the splitting of the universe. Do you even know what they are?To start with your question: yes I know what they are. And indeed the 'evidence" (at least so far) is purely mathematical, without any "real" facts known. Indeed this is at the very least a very weak point is string theory. I think that it is high time indeed to either think up some test to see if anything about it is right, or to abandon the idea until at least some better indications are found. The idea of multiple split-offs of the universe is claimed to be untestable, which as far as I am concerned makes it useless.
[pieces of information (note: not facts)How can pieces of information not be facts?
gep is claiming that god of any form doesn't exist, not just the god of the bible.Strickly speaking, I am claiming that every god Man has ever had has been made up by Man. This is not quite the same.
his "simple logic" seems to imply that his thinking is absolute.This is bogus! All I ask is anyone who claimes there is a god to show at least some indications that this claim might be correct. There is none. You connot prove a non-existence (prove Santa does not exist), but you should be able to prove an existence.
People who believe in a god are delusionalIndeed. Mind you that this does not include any judgement on my side about the people who do believe in a god. I do not, in any way, dismiss people for disagreeing with me.
And none of them are correct.Give me proof of that, and I will correct my conclusions.
It's always the non-religious one who starts quoting the bibleAnd what would be wrong with that? I have quite often seen that religious people have less knwoledge of the Bible (or Quran or whatever) that the religious people who's Holy Book it is! You must study something before you can pass any (logic) thought about it, right?
First of all, I am not religious.Then let us agree to disagree on that point, perhaps we simply have different ideas of what defines “religion”.
Secondly, if you are only saying that the gods that man believe in are likely to be false, then I agree with you.If you change that to “there is nothing to substantiate the claim of existence of any god Man believes in or has ever believed in”, you get my point exactly.
I don't believe in any human religion either.You mean the basis of these religions (i.e. the god or pantheon thereof), or the institutions? People can be Christians without being connected to any Christian church, for ex.
For me, god is the explanation of the existence of the world. Something must've caused the universe to exist, and that cause is my god. Therefore god must exist by my definition.Hmmm, I see what you mean. I too cannot imagine the Universe coming into existence without anything triggering it, even if that triggering was a random quantum fluctuation in the fabric of some meta-Universe. Or something else. Even the possibility that some “meta-mind” in a “meta-universe” started the universe we live in the some sort of “meta-testube”. I also think that we may never know, or even have the slightest clue about, what that trigger was, or wherein it happened, or what went on before, etc. The “brane” theories of string theory do give some explanations, but then say immediately they are not or ever will be verifiable, which, at least to me, makes them little more than useless.
But anyway, you keep stressing actually performing the experiment, but in reality many experiments cannot be done.No, you cannot put a star in a test tube and see what happens when you prod it. But what you can do is, when you have a theory that the Universe started in a big bang, calculate what the background temperature of the Universe would be if indeed that bang did happen. Then you can proceed by building an apparatus that can measure that radiation and see what you get. If what you get is close to what you predicted, you may be on the trail of something, and if it’s way of, something may be wrong with your assumptions. Or your telescope is covered in pigeon poo, of course… This is different than your usual lab experiment, but still it is an experiment. After all, “experiment” means “an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle”. You do not need to bolt the universe to a lab table to test some principles!
What happens if you find the cat alive? What happens if you find the cat dead? You don't really learn anything from opening the box and seeing the results. Certainly you cannot believe in the current theory of how the cat is alive and dead at the same time, since the cat is clearly either dead or alive everytime you do the experiment.I doubt that is the “current” theory! The thought experiment was set up to explain the principle of uncertainty. And what is uncertain is the radioactive particle, of which it is completely unpredictable when it will disintegrate. We cannot know, in this experiment, whether the particle has disintegrated until we open the box. The cat is not uncertain, for it will be alive or dead regardless whether we look or not. Of course, if you haven’t paid attention to the construction of the box, you could be certain the cat is dead once you realise you forgot the air holes.
how can information not be facts? There are false information... For example, if I tell you "it's been proven that god exists", that's a piece of information, but not a fact.Hmm, I see what you mean. However, I consider only right information as information. Clearly wrong information isn’t information at all, in my book!
The indication that god exist is the fact that this universe exists.Only with the definition of ‘god’ as you proposed above. Meaning calling whatever caused the universe god. Yes there must be a cause, but I personally would not dare give it a name…
Now I'm not going to argue against the theory of evolution.Good. Would be a bit silly to deny evolution when, for ex, bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics are flying by by the dozen nowadays!
But how life originally generated is a lot less clear, and there are many theories now.Perhaps we may never know; after all, we cannot rerun how it happened!
Let's take the Urey-Miller experiment. They were able to generate a few amino acids under ideal conditions. But how many amino acids are required to make a living thing? Lots, even for unicellular organisms. And you can't just have any amino acids, only left-handed amino acids. And the amino acids have to combine in a certain order. Besides, who's to say th even if all all this happened, the organism will really be alive rather than just a dead cell?21 amino acids, in fact, are used in living cells. Chemically it is possible to make many more. I do not know if it is necessary to have left-handed ones, maybe right-handed ones might have done too. But it is very hard to give even a definition of “life” (try!). The best scientific one seems to be “a stable chemical molecular based system that can self-replicate and undergo Darwinian evolution”. The most correct one is probably everything we recognise as life”.
If I remember correctly, the chances of a simple unicellular organism forming is less than 10-50 unfortunately I can't find my source to confirm this. Needless to say it's a very very small chance, something similar to having junk in a junkyard being made into a ferrari by a tornado.I think you refer to Fred Hoyle, and the chances he gave were even much worse than that, if I recall correctly. He used this to “prove” panspermia, but forgot that panspermia merely transfers the question of the origin of life to another place, and adds the odds of any organism travelling untold light years through space and land on a planet unscathed. Hoyle also did not want a Big Bang, because he, as an fervent atheist, resented the idea of a beginning to the Universe, because that might indicate a Beginner. Hoyle was a very fundamentalist religious atheist, in that he expected the Universe to fit his personal opinions…
And even if this really happened, the organism has to survive long enough in that dangerous atmosphere to reproduce and mutate. Not very likely, in my opinion.Why not? You would hardly believe what some bacteria can survive, or even thrive on! (Trust me, I work in microbiology. What some can do and adapt to is beyond belief!). What is dangerous to us, is balmy to some of these bugs (like an optimum grow temperature of 115°C (that is 238°F!), or a pH of 1, or the capacity to breath iron…)
Of course you can argue that since there are trillions of stars in a galaxy and trillions of galaxies, it'll happen somewhere.Who knows, we may life on the only planet on which it ever happened, and existed long enough to evolve into lawyers!
But then we come back to the question of where those stars came from.We can nowadays more or less see them form before our very telescopes…
If you change that to “there is nothing to substantiate the claim of existence of any god Man believes in or has ever believed in”, you get my point exactly.
Why am I ignored so constantly? xDDDDDDDThe most positive epithet to Gosse's Omphalos Theory is "hilarious" I think. Popper's thoughts seem to be rather more interesting. There are limits to falsifiabillity, of course (you cannot prove the non-existence of something, for example), but he seems to be at least on the right track.
For all of you who love science and religion, revise K. Popper's thoughts and Henry Gosse's Onphalos theory. They are nice!
Big news: It will happen on October 21. The world is currently under judgement, and will be destroyed on October 21.