Is "god" a myth?

flipdewaf · Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:00 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Those asserting any set of values would say the same thing, flip. Values are really slippery once they are closely evaluated. I don't know what it means to say that a myth is true. Myths can be useful, dysfunctional, etc. I would never claim my myths are true and yours aren't. Rather it is more useful to describe how they function in a particular society. Then again I am more agnostic about these things than my friends are who claim to be non-believers. It kind of got to be a running joke.

I'm making no assertions about moral values themselves but about the origin of those moral values. What I am asserting however is that there is no god, that is a fact and so therefore you can claim whatever moral judgment you want but to claim that a supernatural being had anything got do with it then you are plainly and simply wrong.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

frmrCapCadet · Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:18 pm

My, aren't you militant. You even have assumed what I might mean by the word 'god'.

flipdewaf · Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:59 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
My, aren't you militant. You even have assumed what I might mean by the word 'god'.

Theistic creator and ruler of the universe was my assumption, which I would think would be pretty reasonable. We don't normally have to define standard word when creating threads. What would you be referring to when talking of 'god'?

People often see surety as threatening and call it militant.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WIederling · Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:59 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
People often see surety as threatening and call it militant.

More like irrational.
What other unproven things do they believe to be true _and_ are acting on them?

frmrCapCadet · Sat Mar 03, 2018 2:40 pm

Statements about the meaning of life and virtues are of necessity metaphorical. I remind co-religious of this and they reluctantly agree. But keep in mind that any virtue myth anyone may propose is metaphorical, and the system of virtue is simply a myth. Hopefully a useful one. As a challenge give me one of the rules of your ethic, and I will easily show you that it is so filled with exceptions that it too falls apart under any thoughtful analysis. Of course you could have learned that if you read your Socrates.

The work 'theo' comes from Greek mythology, where oddly, those not believing in the city gods were atheists (even if they believed in other gods). Most Christian doctrines and dogmas were developed under the tutelage of the Roman Emperors after 300CE in a highly political environment. I see no reason to accept the truth claims of those developments. Buddhism has suffered from far more invented doctrines and dogmas than seems to me acceptable. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion at heart, and the theism of the Abrahamic religions does not hold up nearly so well to careful investigation as many think.

The 'holy' center of the universe for those of us admiring modern science are the resting spots of Newton and Darwin at, and this is no myth, Westminster Abbey. Do remember that quantum scientists do not claim to know reality, rather with awesome predictability they explain how particles react and make our universe and life possible.

Electronpusher9 · Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:07 am

To whom ever started this thread. Why?Controversy? Fun?Just to see the arguments /discussions?
I have my belief in the creation of everything we perceive . I could explain but that would be fruitless since that is a very personal thing. I will say I do believe in the Classic Judeo-Christian doctrine.

tommy1808 · Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:00 am

Electronpusher9 wrote:
is a very personal thing.

There is nothing personal about reality, there is just one.

Best regards
Thomas

flipdewaf · Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:52 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Statements about the meaning of life and virtues are of necessity metaphorical. I remind co-religious of this and they reluctantly agree. But keep in mind that any virtue myth anyone may propose is metaphorical, and the system of virtue is simply a myth. Hopefully a useful one. As a challenge give me one of the rules of your ethic, and I will easily show you that it is so filled with exceptions that it too falls apart under any thoughtful analysis. Of course you could have learned that if you read your Socrates.

The work 'theo' comes from Greek mythology, where oddly, those not believing in the city gods were atheists (even if they believed in other gods). Most Christian doctrines and dogmas were developed under the tutelage of the Roman Emperors after 300CE in a highly political environment. I see no reason to accept the truth claims of those developments. Buddhism has suffered from far more invented doctrines and dogmas than seems to me acceptable. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion at heart, and the theism of the Abrahamic religions does not hold up nearly so well to careful investigation as many think.

The 'holy' center of the universe for those of us admiring modern science are the resting spots of Newton and Darwin at, and this is no myth, Westminster Abbey. Do remember that quantum scientists do not claim to know reality, rather with awesome predictability they explain how particles react and make our universe and life possible.

And what of those ramblings have anything to do with the topic at hand, the existence of god? you seem to do a lot of obfuscating and no answering. Talking about the detail of what a deity might bring to a religion and how that might affect a set of values but nothing yet about the existence of the deity itself. It's like the person who spills all their knowledge on to 90 pieces of paper in an exam on the hope that the right piece of information is there, this time was a fail.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DIRECTFLT · Sun Mar 04, 2018 8:29 am

The "AI" God will not be a myth... I wonder what the image will look like?? You'll need to know.... so you can Worship it!

WIederling · Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:42 am

Electronpusher9 wrote:
To whom ever started this thread. Why?Controversy? Fun?Just to see the arguments /discussions?
I have my belief in the creation of everything we perceive . I could explain but that would be fruitless since that is a very personal thing. I will say I do believe in the Classic Judeo-Christian doctrine.

I see no issue with what you do behind closed doors and onto yourself.
you could harvest curls from the Spaghetti god all day long.

Things get iffy when people translate their belief into commands for others in a top down fashion.
( extremely iffy when it is "you" must do this or that while "self" finds some convoluted reason to not be bound.
I see this valid for belief systems beyond what is commonly seen as religion. "perceived exceptionality" being one.)

Real world rules for intersocial behaviour are based on "common grounds".

Aggressively coming to the door or even through the door with force and peddling ones religion is about as "bad taste" as it can get.

frmrCapCadet · Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:45 pm

flip - you seem to have a fairly militant idea about what you believe, which is OK, but you also have militant ideas about what other people believe, and evidently no interest in what they actually believe. In my circles we call such people fundamentalists.

flipdewaf · Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:03 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
flip - you seem to have a fairly militant idea about what you believe, which is OK

in what way is it militant?

frmrCapCadet wrote:
, but you also have militant ideas about what other people believe,

people often see people putting logic up against their belief system as militant, I imagine something you have put a lot of time and effort into being discussed and refuted from a point of logic is threatening. Like someone asking why on earth you like your spouse or calling your baby ugly or ridiculing the colours you have chosen to paint your house because they clash.

frmrCapCadet wrote:
and evidently no interest in what they actually believe.

that's where you are wrong, I'm quite interested in what people believe in and particularly why they believe in those things, it just happens that that this thread is not about what one believes in it is about the existence of a deity.

frmrCapCadet wrote:
In my circles we call such people fundamentalists.

really? I'd call a fundamentalist one who cannot change their opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence and are blind to the facts as presented. I would happily say that there is a god and would change my stance if good evidence was presented and therefore would not see myself as a fundamentalist. There has not as yet been any evidence presented for the existence of a god and so I have not changed my stance on there not being one. Please feel free to present such information and we can surely discuss it.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Electronpusher9 · Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:50 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Electronpusher9 wrote:
is a very personal thing.

There is nothing personal about reality, there is just one.

Best regards
Thomas

Ah, but what is reality.

bagoldex · Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:58 am

Electronpusher9 wrote:
To whom ever started this thread. Why?Controversy? Fun?Just to see the arguments /discussions?
I have my belief in the creation of everything we perceive . I could explain but that would be fruitless since that is a very personal thing. I will say I do believe in the Classic Judeo-Christian doctrine.

Why? The possibility for amusement as people like you try to justify your belief in fairy tales and mythology to other adults.

tommy1808 · Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:11 am

Electronpusher9 wrote:
Ah, but what is reality.

That what we have evidence for. For God we have none.

best regards
Thomas

treetreeseven · Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:20 am

I was a militant agnostic - "I don't know and you don't either" - for decades, starting in middle school or so. Raised very secular.

Time and the school of hard knocks have opened me up a bit more. Also I've been hanging out with Zen Buddhists, whose beliefs match remarkably well with the ones I've had all that time. I don't know nearly so much about other flavors of Buddhism - though like any human institution it's corruptible, see also the Rohinga - but I sure do appreciate the Zen distillation of literal thousands of years of wisdom on how to deal with life's unending stream of BS and remain an effective person who lifts up others in their sphere of influence.

On a personal level, I am still agnostic, with leanings which could be described as animist. Perhaps I'm even still a little militant: if I don't know and you don't either, that goes equally for atheists and believers. :spin:

tommy1808 · Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:02 am

treetreeseven wrote:
I was a militant agnostic - "I don't know and you don't either" -

That depends on your definition of "knowing". We also don´t know that fire breathing dragons don´t exist, yet you barely find anyone believing in those ...

Also I've been hanging out with Zen Buddhists, whose beliefs match remarkably well with the ones I've had all that time. I don't know nearly so much about other flavors of Buddhism

plenty of Buddists don´t believe in God(s)

if I don't know and you don't either, that goes equally for atheists and believers.

Nah. Few atheists would say there that we have proof of gods non-existence. Most would say there is no evidence for a god, hence there provisionally assume there is none. While "I don't know and you don't either" is a sensible position to have regarding a "god", it is not regarding the somewhat defined God´s of earthly religions. The power of prayer for example is scientifically testable, even the Tempelton foundations says so, and failed the test. Faith healing is scientifically testable, and has failed the test. Much about god(s) is testable, once you nail down one god and his supposed characteristics.

There is much better evidence for the power of wizards serving the Egypt god Osiris, we have an eyewitness autograph smack in the middle of Rome, than there is for Jesus, and about the same level of data for fire breathing dragons. Are you agnostic or atheist about fire breathing dragons? Fairies? The Easter bunny? Gnomes? Goblins? Wizards serving Osiris?

best regards
Thomas

treetreeseven · Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:08 am

tommy1808 wrote:
treetreeseven wrote:
I was a militant agnostic - "I don't know and you don't either" -

That depends on your definition of "knowing".

Being absolutely certain one is correct. Believer or nonbeliever, it's a very presumptuous position to take. Personally, if there is a creator or supreme being, it's long been my position that we are nowhere near evolved enough to understand it in any but the dimmest way. Our impressive flying machines still burn dead plants for their power, and the waste products thereof are poisoning our own habitat just like mindless bacteria eat themselves out of house and home in a petri dish. We, as a species, ain't sh*t yet.

A lot of this thread is coming down to semantics and the "which god" and "can't prove a negative" question, though, all of which to me are more boring than a question like "is there a creative force behind the universe" :smile:

Also I've been hanging out with Zen Buddhists, whose beliefs match remarkably well with the ones I've had all that time. I don't know nearly so much about other flavors of Buddhism

plenty of Buddists don´t believe in God(s)

I'm aware. I just spent a couple short stints at a Zen monastery, with many of the residents being agnostics and people with conceptions of "god" quite unlike the popular Sky Daddy concept :smile:

if I don't know and you don't either, that goes equally for atheists and believers.

Nah. Few atheists would say there that we have proof of gods non-existence. Most would say there is no evidence for a god, hence there provisionally assume there is none.

Sure, if you pin them down to that. But my statement can be taken quite literally. I don't know for a fact one way or the other. I may believe one way or the other. Same with an atheist, same with the Pope. None of us "know." But find devout believers of any stripe - whether their belief system be atheism or some kind of theism - and they will insist that they "know."

The thing is, that's another reductive argument which inevitably boils down to how consciousness and perception works and what knowledge is, and to me, boiling it down thus is boring and irksome. And I'm the one who advanced it here. Ugh.

Much about god(s) is testable, once you nail down one god and his supposed characteristics.

Sure. However, my strong suspicion is that if there is a god even vaguely along the lines of monotheistic creator, every religion on earth is probably mostly wrong about its characteristics and motives, if it has any. Mythology and religion are heavily intertwined. So I personally don't care about disproving those. I also note the OP didn't specify.

Are you agnostic or atheist about fire breathing dragons? Fairies? The Easter bunny? Gnomes? Goblins? Wizards serving Osiris?

These are all concepts which are a lot less expansive than a being which could create the observable universe. They can (clearly) also be fully modeled by the human mind. Apples and oranges.

tommy1808 · Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:35 am

treetreeseven wrote:
These are all concepts which are a lot less expansive than a being which could create the observable universe. They can (clearly) also be fully modeled by the human mind. Apples and oranges.

Giving the never ending number of Gods human minds have made up that statement is obviously wrong. And as far as we know everything we assume about god is a product of the human mind. And to the best of our knowledge there is no need for someone to create the observable universe any more than you need someone to create bubbles in boiling water. There isn´t even an argument why a creator is needed, that doesn´t equally apply to the creator herself. Logically God is a useless proposition, it doesn´t create any knowledge, nor does it answer any question, It only shifts the question from where does the Universe come from to where does God come from.

best regards
Thomas

flipdewaf · Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:36 pm

treetreeseven wrote:
whose beliefs match remarkably well with the ones I've had all that time

At least you admit that that is what your chosen moral path is rather then absolving yourself from the responsibility of moral decision making and trying to explain why a book makes your moral judgements.

treetreeseven wrote:
Being absolutely certain one is correct. Believer or nonbeliever, it's a very presumptuous position to take.

Agreed, one should work from available evidence and make judgements based on that evidence. Only there is no evidence for the being a god or gods, hence why the only rational position is to assume that there is none until such evidence is presented.

treetreeseven wrote:
if I don't know and you don't either, that goes equally for atheists and believers.

But not knowing is fine, its not knowing and filling the gaps with untested nonsense and calling it true that is completely stupid.

treetreeseven wrote:
Our impressive flying machines still burn dead plants for their power, and the waste products thereof are poisoning our own habitat just like mindless bacteria eat themselves out of house and home in a petri dish. We, as a species, ain't sh*t yet.

yes, our species aren't shit, and probably never will be. If aliens looked down on earth then they would probably see the insects or bacteria as the most sccessful, I do see how yu compare us to bacteria i a derogatory way though?

treetreeseven wrote:
A lot of this thread is coming down to semantics and the "which god" and "can't prove a negative" question

Well you can't prove a negative and bringing something down to semantics is a stalling tactic used by school children when they haven't done their homework. It was a simple ask, evidence of god, the problem being is that there is a gap where there should be evidence and those who believe are so used to accepting that a god can fill that gap that they have become stuck in a game of mental gymnastics.

treetreeseven wrote:
all of which to me are more boring than a question like "is there a creative force behind the universe"

Yes, is there a creative force behind the universe was the point of this thread and no one has provided any evidence for it yet. Boring questions are often the most important ones.

treetreeseven wrote:
with many of the residents being agnostics and people with conceptions of "god" quite unlike the popular Sky Daddy concept

Do any of them have any evidence for their particular god existing or a reason why their god might create the world?

treetreeseven wrote:
I don't know for a fact one way or the other.

No, nobody does if you choose to use fact in that particular way, we don't know for a fact that gravity will exist in the middle of the atlantic when I'm 36000ft above it this afternoon but I don't worry about it because all available evidence shows that it will be fine.

treetreeseven wrote:
same with the Pope

Except the pope probably does know that god doesn't exist but he's getting fucking minted like all the other CEOs out there so why would he care?

treetreeseven wrote:
and they will insist that they "know."

Imagine if the banks did that with business loans "so sir, how do you know your business will make a profit and you will be able to keep up repayments" , " I just know". People should be derisded fropm all fronts for saying this and no matter what it is. One side of this argument however has presented information and the other has not.

treetreeseven wrote:
boiling it down thus is boring and irksome.

Not liking the idea of something so shrugging it off? Sounds like religious people when you tell them death is the end.

treetreeseven wrote:
Sure. However, my strong suspicion is that if there is a god even vaguely along the lines of a monotheistic creator, every religion on earth is probably mostly wrong about its characteristics and motives,

Absolutely!!! If there is a creator he/she/it is probably a but twisted and weird. Who creates a world full of such misery and pain, who creates a word that has any pain and suffering? why do we look up to this person and why would we not call them a dick and move on?

treetreeseven wrote:
These are all concepts which are a lot less expansive than a being which could create the observable universe. They can (clearly) also be fully modeled by the human mind. Apples and oranges.

So the being that could create the universe is more believable? The concept of god is very believable and there is good resources to understand why the human brain is tricked into believing such things.

I'm off to catch a plane now and hope that god decides to keep the laws of physics going for the next 12 hrs.

Fred

Nicoeddf · Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:12 pm

Flighty wrote:
I think there are many gods in many universes. But they basically do not care about us.

My analogy is humans vs. ants. We are like gods compared to ants. We can engineer them. We can kill them easily, in ways that are incomprehensible to ants. But, 99.999999% of events in an average ant's life are unaffected by humans. AND WE LIVE ON THE SAME PLANET.

So who are we to say there aren't gods out there? We don't know. Maybe a god did create our little Universe, which is probably insignificant. Maybe our universe is a booger in a god's nose. And maybe that god is a child, or a giraffe. We do not know.

Absolutely true. But I sincerely hope that those ants don't kill each other in droves like humans, because they think when other ants don't pray to fat-Willie, the guys comes out of his house with a lawnmower to kill'em all. That's the big difference...

tommy1808 · Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:28 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:
Absolutely true. But I sincerely hope that those ants don't kill each other in droves like humans, because they think when other ants don't pray to fat-Willie, the guys comes out of his house with a lawnmower to kill'em all. That's the big difference...

Ant warfare is pretty much to the last ant standing. Or assassin style, or taking slaves.....

Chimps also fight "wars" much like humans before we had specialized tools for doing so.

best regards
Thomas

Nicoeddf · Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:34 pm

Birdwatching wrote:
The problem is that most people mix up two things that have nothing to do with each other.

1: believing in a "maker of things I can't explain". This is a personal thing of each individual, and everybody should decide this for themselves. In old times people couldn't fugure out what makes lightning hit a tree, or a solar eclipse, or the seasons. Since they couldn't explain these phenomena, they made up a mysterious ghost in the sky who did these things, problem solved.

2: church or organized religion. This has exactly two purposes: it's a business to make money, and it's used to control and influence populations. Millions of people work for the church, and it's easy money. They will tell you they're doing good charitable work too, that benefits the community and the poor children in Africa, but that's bullcrap and they could be doing much more charity work if there wasn't any religion involved. And besides, much of the misery the churches are helping fight wouldn't be there in the first place without organized religion. Ask any pastor, rabbi, imam if they'd prefer working in a factory or office, or continue telling people fairy tales and getting good cash for it. But there will always be enough stupid people who go to church and empty their pockets.

If there's really a god, you don't need to go to church.

My taking as well - well said!

Nicoeddf · Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:36 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
Absolutely true. But I sincerely hope that those ants don't kill each other in droves like humans, because they think when other ants don't pray to fat-Willie, the guys comes out of his house with a lawnmower to kill'em all. That's the big difference...

Ant warfare is pretty much to the last ant standing. Or assassin style, or taking slaves.....

Chimps also fight "wars" much like humans before we had specialized tools for doing so.

best regards
Thomas

Thomas, das weiß ich!

But that doesn't change the fact the I clearly infered "religious" killings in the name of god. And you know it.

tommy1808 · Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:42 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
Absolutely true. But I sincerely hope that those ants don't kill each other in droves like humans, because they think when other ants don't pray to fat-Willie, the guys comes out of his house with a lawnmower to kill'em all. That's the big difference...

Ant warfare is pretty much to the last ant standing. Or assassin style, or taking slaves.....

Chimps also fight "wars" much like humans before we had specialized tools for doing so.

best regards
Thomas

Thomas, das weiß ich!
But that doesn't change the fact the I clearly infered "religious" killings in the name of god. And you know it.

True that.

Celebrating god commanded genocide is probably only a human hobby.

best regards
Thomas

apodino · Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:04 am

I don't think anyone can prove one way or the other...nor will anyone be able to. Here are my personal views.

1. If God exists....something truly wonderful awaits those who follow him in the afterlife. If there is no God, then we are truly done for when we pass on. The former sounds better to me thank you.

2. There is much talk about the Ten Commandments. It is my firm belief that if every person on this planet followed the ten commandments, regardless of whether or not god exists, we would not have the mass shootings we have, we would not have the hate we have, couples would stay married for life, there would be no cheating, there would be no sexual abuse.

3. Bible or no Bible, the existence of Jesus Christ seems to be pretty much confirmed by most historians. The early part of the Old Testament forms the basis for Jewish law as it existed back in those times. Jesus was well familiar with it. I tend to listen to Jesus from back in those times. His teachings form the basis for my own faith.

4. I have heard too many stories of supernatural experiences to be a coincidence.

5. Lastly, I do believe that the terms God and Nature are synonymous.

Not asking for anyone to agree with me here, but thats how I feel.

tommy1808 · Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:28 am

apodino wrote:
I don't think anyone can prove one way or the other...nor will anyone be able to. Here are my personal views.

1. If God exists....something truly wonderful awaits those who follow him in the afterlife. If there is no God, then we are truly done for when we pass on. The former sounds better to me thank you.

Yay.. you get to worship god for all eternity. Basically what North Korea is today, only without death as escape hatch.

2. There is much talk about the Ten Commandments. It is my firm belief that if every person on this planet followed the ten commandments, regardless of whether or not god exists, we would not have the mass shootings we have, we would not have the hate we have, couples would stay married for life, there would be no cheating, there would be no sexual abuse.

The Bible, 10 commandments and all, is full of genocide and sexual abuse. Didn´t seem to work then, why would it work now?

Thou shalt have no other gods before me

Yeah, talking people freedom away is sure gonne help world peace...

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image

Yes, civilization, peace and harmony absolutely depend on not making images.... *rolleyes*

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain

Also utter useless. Unless of course people get pissed if you call their god thes arguably most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a mysogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

But then again, if they didn´t worship that ass, they wouldn´t care .....

And Jesus has announced to murder all of us, well, actually 7 Trillion of us, according to the bible, and torture many of them for all eternity, so he is even worse than his father.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy

Well, i guess one common rest day makes sense for a coherent society and families.

The rest is at least somewhat useful, but people that never even heard about the ten commandments usually follow all of them

3. Bible or no Bible, the existence of Jesus Christ seems to be pretty much confirmed by most historians.

Well, that has come under fire, and significantly so. Other religions have better evidence for their truth value than Christianity, and there is zero evidence for an historical Jesus. That is just dogma, and in the last decades people did start looking at that "Evidence"and found there isn´t really anything. But we get more and more Evidence for fake and made up stories in the Bible, Church fathers complaining about how freely holy texts get edited and complaining that Christianity is so complicated that someone needed a easy to digest story for the uneducated sheep and babes.

The early part of the Old Testament forms the basis for Jewish law as it existed back in those times. Jesus was well familiar with it. I tend to listen to Jesus from back in those times. His teachings form the basis for my own faith.

Yup, and Jesus existed and had been divine, he would have known that much of the old testament, the exodus for example, never happened.

4. I have heard too many stories of supernatural experiences to be a coincidence.

And none of those holds up to any sort of scrutiny

5. Lastly, I do believe that the terms God and Nature are synonymous.

so no personal god?

Not asking for anyone to agree with me here, but thats how I feel.

I don´t think we have much more influence on what we believe than we do on who we love.

best regards
Thomas

DarkSnowyNight · Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:36 am

tommy1808 wrote:

Also utter useless. Unless of course people get pissed if you call their god thes arguably most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a mysogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Well you've covered the nicer aspects, lol.

What always amazes me about modern Christian and Islamic believers. Specifically the concept of damnation. I won't even get into the moral turpitude required to believe Eternal Punishment is acceptable for any crime. For me, the idea that an individual is totally ok with worshipping and "loving" a being that will very likely cast them into hell over some gotcha is bewildering, to say the least.

I've even gone as far as to ask my more devout friends if they would still love their god upon arrival to the gates of hell. Surprisingly, they claim they would.

Obviously I think there's some spiritual bravado there. But just the idea that they would still worship something that would do the literal worst thing imaginable to a being is... curious, to say the least. It's like a lifetime of voluntary Stockholm Syndrome.

tommy1808 wrote:
4. I have heard too many stories of supernatural experiences to be a coincidence.

And none of those holds up to any sort of scrutiny

I've heard too many stories about crisis actors. Cast a wide enough net and you'll hear all the stories you need to confirm your fantasies and deepest fears.

tommy1808 · Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:42 am

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
if they would still love their god upon arrival to the gates of hell. Surprisingly, they claim they would.

because that is just a test of their faith. If they proof that they love their abusive partner no matter what, they hope to still get salvation. .....

"Thor? I expected Jesus!"
"Jesus? Oh yeah, took me a bit to get his debris of my hammer".

best regards
Thomas

Nicoeddf · Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:36 am

apodino wrote:
couples would stay married for life, there would be no cheating, there would be no sexual abuse.

Out of serious interest:

1. Why would be staying married for life a pursuable proposition? Because religion told us? Or because there is any genetical and evolutionary evidence, that this is beneficial?
2. Cheating is a moral issue, not a god or no god issue. Why would it need a god? And is the moral not religiously created?
3. No sexual abuse??? The catholic church is dying laughing...

Aesma · Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:19 pm

treetreeseven wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
treetreeseven wrote:
I was a militant agnostic - "I don't know and you don't either" -

That depends on your definition of "knowing".

Being absolutely certain one is correct. Believer or nonbeliever, it's a very presumptuous position to take.

I'm absolutely certain I'm correct for day to day life (and death).

If you want a philosophical answer, then I agree I can't be absolutely certain, I would say I'm an agnostic atheist. God would basically need to appear to me to change my mind. If he's credible.

Aesma · Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:25 pm

Just found this and laughed :

WIederling · Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Aesma wrote:
Just found this and laughed :

He,he.
You may want to read Heinlein's book "Job, a Comedy of Justice" on occasion.

tommy1808 · Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:52 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:
1. Why would be staying married for life a pursuable proposition? Because religion told us? Or because there is any genetical and evolutionary evidence, that this is beneficial?

Or empirical data to show that societies without divorce are.happier, less violent and/ or have less crime.

Best regards
Thomas

dandaire · Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:05 pm

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

So God is an atheist? Well if its good enough for him?

Flighty · Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:23 pm

God is an intriguing possibility! I think god is all about the “power of maybe.” And some people choose to live their lives as if a “maybe” is really a yes, for their purposes (this is called faith). If we could prove “God’s” existence, then it would not be called faith, would it? Except perhaps faith in the sense of loyalty. I have no big problem with people who think God is real, because I think such possibilities exist, which is almost the same thing. Being open minded rather than closed minded.

tommy1808 · Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:35 pm

Flighty wrote:
God is an intriguing possibility! I think god is all about the “power of maybe.” And some people choose to live their lives as if a “maybe” is really a yes, for their purposes (this is called faith).

If people consciously chose what god to believe in, how come that almost all just happen to adopt the religion of their parents?
If parents told their kids "Jesus is just a made up story" when they just confirm the same about the easterbunny and Santa Claus, belief in Jesus would go the same way as believing in the other two. The difference would be in the environment and what they tell them.

Best regards
Thomas

BN747 · Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:50 pm

treetreeseven wrote:

On a personal level, I am still agnostic, with leanings which could be described as animist. Perhaps I'm even still a little militant: if I don't know and you don't either, that goes equally for atheists and believers.

"An Agnostic is an Atheist without Balls"...Bill Maher

BN747

Nicoeddf · Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:05 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
1. Why would be staying married for life a pursuable proposition? Because religion told us? Or because there is any genetical and evolutionary evidence, that this is beneficial?

Or empirical data to show that societies without divorce are.happier, less violent and/ or have less crime.

Best regards
Thomas

Just to be sure: is that being married or being in a relationship? And has that to be forever, or might the partner change?
I would concur with the latter, not the former.
But maybe I am wrong,

Nicoeddf · Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:08 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Flighty wrote:
God is an intriguing possibility! I think god is all about the “power of maybe.” And some people choose to live their lives as if a “maybe” is really a yes, for their purposes (this is called faith).

If people consciously chose what god to believe in, how come that almost all just happen to adopt the religion of their parents?
If parents told their kids "Jesus is just a made up story" when they just confirm the same about the easterbunny and Santa Claus, belief in Jesus would go the same way as believing in the other two. The difference would be in the environment and what they tell them.

Best regards
Thomas

I so much would like to use a swear word to confirm how much I agree with you here. But my bans get longer every time, so I must spare this occasion...

In any way you are right. A child is not Christian or Muslim. It is the child of Christian or Muslim parents. Makes all the world of a difference.

Flighty · Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:09 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Flighty wrote:
God is an intriguing possibility! I think god is all about the “power of maybe.” And some people choose to live their lives as if a “maybe” is really a yes, for their purposes (this is called faith).

If people consciously chose what god to believe in, how come that almost all just happen to adopt the religion of their parents?
If parents told their kids "Jesus is just a made up story" when they just confirm the same about the easterbunny and Santa Claus, belief in Jesus would go the same way as believing in the other two. The difference would be in the environment and what they tell them.

Best regards
Thomas

I so much would like to use a swear word to confirm how much I agree with you here. But my bans get longer every time, so I must spare this occasion...

In any way you are right. A child is not Christian or Muslim. It is the child of Christian or Muslim parents. Makes all the world of a difference.

People are like sheep. Most people follow instructions. Can they have faith? Sure, why not. I don't think children can meaningfully claim a religious faith though, and many religions agree with that. Catholicism, Lutheran church and Judaism to name a few.

Is Jesus a made up story? I think it is a great story written by wise people. Maybe there is a God. Maybe God had a son, and that dude's name was Jesus. I don't possess proof that it is not true. If the story makes people happy, cool! The human mind hungers for complex thoughts, and the story of Jesus is a popular one. There are other stories too about Mars, Athena, Buddha, Hindu gods, Klingons and hobbits. They EACH might be 100% true, or they might all be true.

Aesma · Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:03 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
1. Why would be staying married for life a pursuable proposition? Because religion told us? Or because there is any genetical and evolutionary evidence, that this is beneficial?

Or empirical data to show that societies without divorce are.happier, less violent and/ or have less crime.

Best regards
Thomas

No divorce but plenty of screwing around.

Electronpusher9 · Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:57 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Electronpusher9 wrote:
Ah, but what is reality.

That what we have evidence for. For God we have none.

best regards
Thomas

I disagree. There is you and me. We exist and shouldn't . Do you n
Know our energy out put at any given second? What equals to 120 watts. You and I are a mixture of not only chemical reactions but nuclear ones. We are a very low grade nuclear reactor. We should just go poof. But we don't.

bagoldex · Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:36 am

Electronpusher9 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Electronpusher9 wrote:
Ah, but what is reality.

That what we have evidence for. For God we have none.

best regards
Thomas

I disagree. There is you and me. We exist and shouldn't . Do you n
Know our energy out put at any given second? What equals to 120 watts. You and I are a mixture of not only chemical reactions but nuclear ones. We are a very low grade nuclear reactor. We should just go poof. But we don't.

This is the ultimate cop out ... "I can't explain or figure something out so there must be a deity pulling the strings?"

Do you have any idea how pathetic and ignorant that sounds?

tommy1808 · Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:25 am

Electronpusher9 wrote:
Know our energy out put at any given second?

Yup, about 0.03 Watt at rest.

What equals to 120 watts.

who told you that nonsense? I think you would notice if every square centimeter radiated 5 to 6 calories per second. I think the blisters forming on your skin would be somewhat distracting...

You and I are a mixture of not only chemical reactions but nuclear ones. We are a very low grade nuclear reactor.

We are in no way like a nuclear reactor. We can handle the decay of about average natural occurrence of radioactive material, but that is about it.

We should just go poof. But we don't.

BS, there is no reason for us to go poof.

best regards
Thomas

WIederling · Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:28 am

Electronpusher9 wrote:
]You and I are a mixture of not only chemical reactions but nuclear ones.
We are a very low grade nuclear reactor.
We should just go poof.
But we don't.

Go back to school. you haven't been attentive there :-)

You would be better off asking if DNA based life is a complexity that demands intelligent design. ;-)

Electronpusher9 · Thu Mar 08, 2018 6:31 pm

I am sorry for destroying your world view with science. But the physics is valid and the math works.

tommy1808 · Thu Mar 08, 2018 6:42 pm

Electronpusher9 wrote:
I am sorry for destroying your world view with science. But the physics is valid and the math works.

Your physics is BS and the math doesn't work out at all. If your body produced 120W per second, you'd be on fire. If you got in a bathtub, you would get the 70-80 liters of water in there with you to boil and completely evaporate in about 20 minutes.

That is physics

Best regards
Thomas

flipdewaf · Thu Mar 08, 2018 10:28 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Electronpusher9 wrote:
I am sorry for destroying your world view with science. But the physics is valid and the math works.

Your physics is BS and the math doesn't work out at all. If your body produced 120W per second, you'd be on fire. If you got in a bathtub, you would get the 70-80 liters of water in there with you to boil and completely evaporate in about 20 minutes.

That is physics

Best regards
Thomas

No, he's quite right. A human does does put out about 120w, my source said about 100w but that's close enough to not argue. He is also right about the body being a mass of chemical reactions, all life forms are for their very survival. The nuclear reactor piece however is total bollocks!

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Electronpusher9 · Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:02 am

flipdewaf wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Electronpusher9 wrote:
I am sorry for destroying your world view with science. But the physics is valid and the math works.

Exactly. Your are absolutely right. We would be on fire. Our bodies should just go up in smoke. But, we don't. Why? This is science. Tell me why. How. We are a damped reactor.
As to what Fred said about not being a reactor, again your opinion. Chemical reactions are just that chemical. But at the atomic level there are atomic reactions to were energy is given off by the trading of neutrons and protons I am not saying they are large but we are creating different substances with these actions.

The physics is valid and the Math good. This has been evident since the 70's but not widely presented for reactions just like y'all's. Just because it isn't known by many doesn't make it wrong.

Your physics is BS and the math doesn't work out at all. If your body produced 120W per second, you'd be on fire. If you got in a bathtub, you would get the 70-80 liters of water in there with you to boil and completely evaporate in about 20 minutes.

That is physics

Best regards
Thomas

No, he's quite right. A human does does put out about 120w, my source said about 100w but that's close enough to not argue. He is also right about the body being a mass of chemical reactions, all life forms are for their very survival. The nuclear reactor piece however is total bollocks!

Fred

Hey Fred,
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tommy1808 wrote:
Electronpusher9 wrote:
Ah, but what is reality.

That what we have evidence for. For God we have none.

best regards
Thomas

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net