Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[iamsickofyear12]

First, I subscribe to no religion, nor am I attempting to validate any religion. Rather, I am adopting a holisitic approach to the issue at hand. Obviously, one of the methods is interpretivism (especially for questions 4-7).

In regards to the evidence, I am trying to have you validate your claims, the same standard that religious adherents should comply to. Now if you have no evidence to support your specific claim, then it cannot be held to be valid. The same notion applies to theological arguements.

I shouldn't have to provide evidence of anything.

If you don't enough about religious history to know what evidence there is to support my claim, what specific people and what specific deities you have no business having an opinion on religion at all.

Question 2 is irrelevant.

Question 3 is also irrelevant.

If you don't understand the use of morals and 'follow' in this context you are just plain stupid.

 

[LCollins]

You can't live out Atheism/Agnosticism. Everyday we make moral and ethical decisions. Athiest's can't say that it is absolutely wrong to murder or rape someone. Why? Because in their view everything is relative. Everything is only for the good of the human race, evolutionary advantage etc. Sure, you might say that in your opinion it is wrong to murder someone. But does that mean it is wrong for someone else when they are murdering your sister? If so, why? What makes you think you can force your opinion of morality onto someone else? Except if there is a moral law, given by a moral law giver.. sounds a lot like the God of the Bible.

Is the view of atheists any less relative than that of Christianity? Your bible is meant to be of absolute reference. Does it not say in the bible that slavery is ok (with slaves from a neighbouring country)? So unless you think today that slavery is alright, does that not also mean that your views are relative to your time and place? Morality is and always will be built into humans, we have evolved with that sense - it has not be given to us by a book or concept, they are only used as a feeble attempt to justify the sense that you have evolved with, no matter how irrational it is. Some of us will arrive at decisions based on unbeliavable reason, others in unreasonable belief. Like everything else, we have trialled and errored and change the system in the desire to increase happiness, hopefully more happiness than the previous, and we keep on adapting in the hope of finding perfection.

 

[RTTTYTR]

I shouldn't have to provide evidence of anything.

If you don't enough about religious history to know what evidence there is to support my claim, what specific people and what specific deities you have no business having an opinion on religion at all.

Question 2 is irrelevant.

Question 3 is also irrelevant.

If you don't understand the use of morals and 'follow' in this context you are just plain stupid.

I take it you have not studied philosophy, otherwise you would understand the fallacy in your arguement. May I suggest that you read up on the Socratic method and intepretivism. The way one defines things is crucial to their arguement (the fact that you disagree shows your ignorance*). Additionally, your appeal to authority** demonstrates the inherent weakness of your arguement without justifing your position. If you aim to convince those who believe in a different ideal to that of yourself (in this case being the religious to accept athiesm) then you need to provide significant evidence*** that cannot be disproven, thus ensuring that your arguement is the superior one.

Moreover, a strong arguement requires the following: logic, justification, demonstration, evidence, and the impact that your arguement has upon the issue.



* ignorance: being the lack of understanding of these issues.
** Authority: the unsupported claims that you make and refuse to back up.
*** Evidence: academic peer-reviewed.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I take it you have not studied philosophy, otherwise you would understand the fallacy in your arguement. May I suggest that you read up on the Socratic method and intepretivism. The way one defines things is crucial to their arguement (the fact that you disagree shows your ignorance*). Additionally, your appeal to authority** demonstrates the inherent weakness of your arguement without justifing your position. If you aim to convince those who believe in a different ideal to that of yourself (in this case being the religious to accept athiesm) then you need to provide significant evidence*** that cannot be disproven, thus ensuring that your arguement is the superior one.

Moreover, a strong arguement requires the following: logic, justification, demonstration, evidence, and the impact that your arguement has upon the issue.

* ignorance: being the lack of understanding of theses issues.
** Authority: the unsupported claims that you make and refuse to back up.
*** Evidence: academic peer-reviewed.

What is the deal with you? You're just trying to annoy me right?

 

[RTTTYTR]

What is the deal with you? You're just trying to annoy me right?

I'm just trying to further the pursuit of knowledge and abolish ignorance

 

[katie_tully]

So I was up at 4:30 this morning and caught 'Benny Hinn Ministeries'. He is the guy that stands there, says 'STOMACH ULCER - CURED! BLESS THE LORD' and makes people faint with his touch.

Yah, Creflo Dollar was also talking about the importance of the dollar in spreading Jesus's love.. and some other nut was telling how God told him to mow his neighbours lawn, so he did, so God filled his neighbour with love and now the neighbour is a born again.

Man, the debate pretty much ends there. Religion is shit.

 

[Stevo.]

The continued existence of Scientology proves theistic religions are shit.

 

[cheesman]

Oh, and the following are not sins:-
- Sex (lol marriage)
- Alcohol ("Take this wine, as it represents the blood of Christ")



No, it just shows the imbecility of some of the people that conform to Christianity. Much as the extremist Muslims reflect negatively on Islam.

Your ignorance amuses me.

Um when he said sex, he meant immoral sex ie - before marriage etc.. not sex in general.
he said "getting drunk" not "drinking" two entirely different things. It is a sin to get drunk. There are countless verses in the bible that say that and make it VERY clear.

.The continued existence of Scientology proves theistic religions are shit.

Scientology is a joke. A guy sat down and wrote a book. Completely different to judaism, christianity, islam which involves divine revelation that many debate happened or didnt happen. In scientology's case, L Ron Hubbard, its founder, is actually known to have made it all up. That is fact. Its not anywhere near the same as the big three, and other theistic religions so you cant put them in the same category and actually say that.

 

[katie_tully]

Scientology is a joke. A guy sat down and wrote a book. Completely different to judaism, christianity, islam which involves divine revelation that many debate happened or didnt happen.

I'm confused. That is how the Seventh Day Adventists popped up. Some guy had some divine intervention and wrote a book about it. Are you telling me Christianity sounds more credible - dude it's exactly the same thing.

 

[robbie1]

some of you may be interested in this:

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=25681

 

[katie_tully]

LOTR is way better.

Yah, I dunno about you but I like my fiction to NOT come with a side dish of 'how to live your life or else you're burning in hell'...

 

[katie_tully]

In his 1781 "Critique of Pure Reason," Kant showed that this premise is false. In fact, he argued, there is a much greater limit to what human beings can know.

He was right. Around that time they were only just working out that microbes exist, and that pooping and eating in the same area resulted in death and stuff.

Kant showed that human knowledge is constrained not merely by the unlimited magnitude of reality but also by a limited sensory apparatus of perception.

In 1781 any comment like this was inherently flawed anyway, given the lack of knowledge on human sensory apparatus to begin with.

Why is this going to hurt our ego? Because 300 years ago Kant deduced that we can't possibly believe our five senses are adequate enough to conclude there is no God? Which is essentially the only argument religion has: God is so great he is beyond comprehension. It's an easy way of saying 'I don't have to prove anything to you because humans cannot comprehend God anyway'.

I think this was debated a while back anyway. Something along the lines of 'prove we all exist and that we're not just figments of our own imagination'

 

[RTTTYTR]

Going only off the Christian Bible because I have no prior experience with Judaism or Islam...the bible is a said of stories correlated into one book, is it not? Sure, you can stand here now and defend it until the cows come home, but who are we to say these guys had [a] divine revelation, as you put it? The whole Christian system is based upon the greatest novel ever written. Well that's my opinion anyways.

He is right in a way, Scientology was written by one person (L Ron Hubbard, whereas the Holy Bible, was written by many people)

Disclaimer: I am analogising the Holy Bible with peer-reviewed publications, that's right peer-reviewed. Anyone think I'm serious?

 

[Stevo.]

So you're saying if we got together a few people on BOS, had a session of smoking weed or acid, called it divine enlightment and wrote a few stories with a morality play it'd as good as gold as long as 'some' of the facts are 'historic'? What's to stop someone with a time machine placing that book in the lap of some powerful historic figure like Caesar and coercing them to believe in bullshit and enforcing it upon their denizens? It might sound ludicrous but it's the same thing. The fact that Scientology continues to exist proves that religion which bases it's ideas upon some silly religious text is bullshit.

 

[LCollins]

So you're saying if we got together a few people on BOS, had a session of smoking weed or acid, called it divine enlightment and wrote a few stories with a morality play it'd as good as gold as long as 'some' of the facts are 'historic'?

Actually thats not too far from the truth in some instances. Mohammad was in a cave for days, before getting the revelations. Likewise Buddha starved himself for 3 days sitting by a tree before he came up with Buddhism. Some denomination of christianity works off a girl getting her head done in by a rock or something. Undoubtably there are more instances of questionable 'insights', that maybe someone else can more accurately tell.

 

[RTTTYTR]

Actually thats not too far from the truth in some instances. Mohammad was in a cave for days, before getting the revelations. Likewise Buddha starved himself for 3 days sitting by a tree before he came up with Buddhism. Some denomination of christianity works off a girl getting her head done in by a rock or something. Undoubtably there are more instances of questionable 'insights', that maybe someone else can more accurately tell.

There are apparently several religions that use mind altering substances as part of the religious practice (peyote for indigenous American tribes & the Native American Church)

 

[cheesman]

u could say that drug thing for the bible only if it were written by one person alone.
however the fact that many many people wrote the books making up the bible over thousands over years and maintained a certain level of consistency and overall coherence throughout demonstrates its not the product of mere hallucinations or just made up.
if they did, howcome we've never heard of other works by these genius authors? surely if they did make up the bible they would have written other works to satisfy their creatve urge and we would have actually heard of them anway.
also, howcome no one's written something EQUALLY compelling and world changing since? i mean, if it's been done once, why not again?

 

[pattii]

Morality before God? I think the earliest humans had a god or gods, so unless that is in specific relation to a specific diety, then I find flaws in your line of arguement. Further, is it even true that morality exists?

:rofl: ..you do realise that the image of god and religion was produced to explain the unexplainable.

When god and religion had earned it acceptance in reality, the next thing that explained the uknown was magic.

morality exists, my morals mean nothing to you as yours to me.

 

[RTTTYTR]

:rofl: ..you do realise that the image of god and religion was produced to explain the unexplainable.

Absolutely, and I think they are both unproven entities, but I always leave open the possibility that I could be wrong (as any rational & enlightened individual should).

When god and religion had earned it acceptance in reality, the next thing that explained the uknown was magic.

Fantastic, can we define reality? (A common thread in philosophy is whether there is an objective reality.) Also can you define this "magic" you refer to (hell/hades/rebirth/whatever can you define all the terms used)

morality exists, my morals mean nothing to you as yours to me.

Prove morals exist (with or without a god)


* Definitions imply specific context, as a result of the power that words possess and the ability to manipulate the meaning of words (ie; interpretivism)

 

[cheesman]

Books that are better than the bible on purely literary merits

*Ulysses - James Joyce
*Candidé - Voltaire
*LOTR Universe and all related Subsidiaries - JRR Tolkien
*Hitchhikers Series (which I'll posit is significantly more profound than any religious text on a metaphysical and metacognitive level) - Douglas Adams
*Otherworld - Tad Williams
*Good Omens - Pratchett/Gaiman
*Hyperion - Dan Simmons

...

Need I go on? Just because they're not written in the same didactic style does not mean there are books out there that are far more moving and beautiful than any number of religious texts.

its not about literary merit or textual beauty or anything, purely global impact and change.
none of those books have still had the same impact the bible has had
none of them have changed the world as much as the bible
how many people have died defending LOTR?
how many familys broken apart by the hitchhikers series?
if the bible were truly made up by people, something greater wouldve come along, its been roughly 1700yrs since it was compiled, a few thousand since the first books were written yet still, after the renaissance, after the information age and all the development of man and the world of literature and how far weve come since then...no text has equalled or surpassed it in impact, or changed the world as much as it as. if it is truly man made, surely another text should have surpassed it by now in terms of impact? but alas, man lies in wait...