Selly
Ask me about Updog...
There is actually more evidence that being from the Planet Krypton came and walked on Water, as per Zod in Superman II...
Attendance question
- Thread starter cooperblade
- Start date
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
There is actually more evidence that being from the Planet Krypton came and walked on Water, as per Zod in Superman II...
Wapping Blade
Well-Known Member
Yes, it's a theory but the best theory so far put forward that fits the evidence, that's how science works.
The point of evolution is that animals and plants did happen by chance, an inconceivable number of chances (genetic mutations) that happened over billions of years. You're not advocating "intelligent design" here are you?
1. Equally intelligent people do not believe in God. So I am afraid relying on intelligent people for support is not a good argument. It's not like where, altough I don't understand the science behind the theory of gravity, I believe it is true. On that point there is unanamous opinion amongst those who do understand the theory that it is true. Where intelligent people disagree, I am afraid you have to make up your own mind.
2. How on earth would anyone know if a body of a man crucified c.30 AD were discovered that it was the body of Jesus? You are putting an impossible condition here. In any event, given that the only evidence for the resurrection are texts written by non eye-witenesses some 30-40 years after Jesus died and given that there has never in all human history being any scientifically verifiable evidence of people rising from the dead, it is, with all due respect as rational to believe that the resurrection happened literally, as it is to believe in the literal truth of the myths Leda and the Swan and Sisyphus and the boulder, both of which of any number of literary texts as evidence for the truth of the stories. Why believe in the literal truth of the resurrection and not those stories?
3. Why do you discount the vast majority of cases where prayer has no effect and the fact that indisputable evidence of miracalous healing (the classic example being the limbs of amputees growing back) never happens?
4. If you had told me before the season that Bradford would play Swansea in the League Cup final that would not have been irrational at all, because both teams had entered the compeition, so it was always a possibility, if unlikley. If you had told me the League Cup final would be between Juventus and Dynamo Kiev that would have been irrational as neither team entered the competition. Rationality is about reasoning from accepted premises. If the premise is "only teams that enter the League Cup competition can play in the final, Bradford and Swansea have entered it and Juventus and Dynamo Kiev haven't", then you can see how the first prediction is rational and the second not.
To my mind belief of God in your sense is irrational because the premise is " Natural disaster happen and people suffer intensley through no fault of their own". If this is accepted then the statement "A God exists who is omnipotent (and thus has power to stop suffering), omniscient (and thus knowns how to stop suffering) and benevolent (and thus wants to stop suffering" is irrational because it is inconsistent with the accepted premise. Saying that we cannot know God's ways and ultimately all is for the best does not get you round that. There is obviously suffering and whatever good ends God might acheive via that suffering, given that he is omniscient and omnipotent he could equally acheieve those ends without suffering.
Thus given the existence of suffering, it is rational to believe any of the following:
1. God doesn't exist at all
2. God exists empirically, but is not omnipotent so has no power to prevent suffering
3. God exists empirically but is no omnsicient, so does not know how to prevent suffering
4. God exists empirically but doesn't care about human beings so does not want to prevent suffering.
5. An omnipotent, omniscicient, benevolent God exists, but only as a conpect in human minds
What is irrational, and must be faith based, is belief in an omnipotent, omniscient benevolent God who exists independent of human minds.
D
Deleted member 875
Guest
My own personal beliefs are in athiesm, and that is not any god. I see horrible things happening all over the world, and if there was a god, then he wouldn't have let any of this. I just don't see any evidence in any form of divine being, i've looked for the evidence, and the evidence stacks up towards me that there is no god.
If there was a god, then why would the Catholic church be so against contraception and homosexuality? Why would Muslims not consider eating Pork as it is a dirty meat, endorse the enslavement of women in the modern world, and starve people in the name of Mohammed during Ramadan. Why would people offer up prayers to a diety whose actuality is not actually proven by anything tangible. Religion creates more hatred than it does love, and to me religious wars are nothing more than millions of people dying because one side claims that their imaginary friend is better than the other sides imaginary friend, and if a god did exist, how could he allow that to happen.
My athiesm is getting worse as i get older. I refuse to attend church for christenings full stop. I refused to get my child christened point blank, as i think that if wants to me a member of a church and christened as a member of the church then that is his choice, and nobody elses, and certainly not a choice to be made on his behalf by somebody else.
If people want to believe in god, and live their own life along religious grounds then i respect their wishes, just as i would hope they respect my wishes to be a complete non-believer.
If there was a god, then why would the Catholic church be so against contraception and homosexuality? Why would Muslims not consider eating Pork as it is a dirty meat, endorse the enslavement of women in the modern world, and starve people in the name of Mohammed during Ramadan. Why would people offer up prayers to a diety whose actuality is not actually proven by anything tangible. Religion creates more hatred than it does love, and to me religious wars are nothing more than millions of people dying because one side claims that their imaginary friend is better than the other sides imaginary friend, and if a god did exist, how could he allow that to happen.
My athiesm is getting worse as i get older. I refuse to attend church for christenings full stop. I refused to get my child christened point blank, as i think that if wants to me a member of a church and christened as a member of the church then that is his choice, and nobody elses, and certainly not a choice to be made on his behalf by somebody else.
If people want to believe in god, and live their own life along religious grounds then i respect their wishes, just as i would hope they respect my wishes to be a complete non-believer.
Selly
Ask me about Updog...
Deleted Member said:
Same here. I got married in a Church 10 years ago, but now I won`t set foot in one if there is a religious element to whats going on.
My in-laws don`t understand this at all. I don`t particuarly care.
Dynamo did it , maybe they should write a book about him and then we can build loads of expensive buildings and spend sundays worshipping him .
Take it you haven't seen Charlotte's Web then?
The Gospels of course. Exactly the same sort of evidence as or the story of Leda and the Swan
blade too long
we go again
just think jesus and his type were the Dynamo of his day , able to do the odd astounding trick in front of people who were , simpletons , uneducated , lets face it fire was still pretty amazing then , and why have all references of the women who surrounded J were eradicated by the all male Catholic church, seen loads of proof to show he had female disciples, but theyve been edited out , its all smoke and mirrors , just like a good illusionist
and Dynamos on you tube walking on water
and I dont have any faith in that either
and Dynamos on you tube walking on water
and I dont have any faith in that either
Thanks for your thoughts Darren, I think a helpful way to move this along is for you to watch the following. It discusses the issues and questions we've been talking about in a more elloquent way than I can. This is a short 10 min clip, the full episode is 20 mins long and talks about natural disasters aswell (I'll look for a clip of the 2nd part aswell as I know it's something we've talked about, I own the full dvd so can watch it and give a summary if I cant find it) All the best, Gavlar.
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
God doesn't exist. The bible is just book of fiction. Move on
Selly
Ask me about Updog...
Aha! Nice argument, but the God you speak of is supposed to have created the Universe, and therefore cannot be a product of its infinite possibilities.
I would certainly agree that it is extremely likelythere are beings with what we would consider "god like" beings. After all Arthur C Clarke said that any sufficiently advance civilisation would have technology indistinguishable from magic.
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
Prof Brian Cox reckons that the universe was created by butterflies... Or was it that butterflies use the sun to navigate.... Or was it that... Shite I can't remember what it was, it was something about butterflies. I think they created the universe. Yep that's it, that's your answer.
No god, just butterflies
Sorry, but his argument his nonsense - to say that if one has a concept of suffering presupposes an idea of God is ludicrous. I think we can all quite clearly see that someone is suffering if you pull off their legs without having to believe in a God.
He also asserts that the definition of suffering is purely a matter for God: it follows that if God condones slavery (as he does in the Bible) then the suffering of slaves is not, in fact, suffering; which is absurd.
He also , by saying that the vast majority of suffering is "due to the fall of humankind", assumes what he sets out to prove - that Christianity is true. That is obviously a circular argument.
I then lost all respect when they started talking about the Garden of Eden story as if it actually happened and isn't just a myth. Please tell me you don't believe that? He then starts blaming the sins of Adam and Eve for the entrance of sin into the world and for the occurence of natural disasters!!! I don't wish to be rude, but is that really the best you can do. With all due respect, that argument cannot possibly impress anyone who doesn't believe in the literal truth of the Garden of Eden story and I don't think even the mainstream churches (C of E and RC Church for example) believe that anymore.
And that last bit about the "intention of the human heart" being to blame for children being born with hereditary diseases? Yes, obviously parents intend the children to be born in that way....
I am sorry if this comes over a bit belligerant, but that kind of unfeeling explaining away of suffering makes me angry.
Highbury_Blade
Bummed in the gob
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2009
- Messages
- 24,619
- Reaction score
- 13,230
Selly
Ask me about Updog...
This is nearly as daft as Glen Hoddle's view on those born with disabilities...
Cheers Darren, i though i was going to have to watch that...
Indeed. There's nothing like talking to an actual literal religious believer (and realising that they actually believe that the myths described in the Bible physically happened and are not to be interpreted in some metaphorical and poetical way) to destroy one's nuanced attempt to understand religion and see one retreating to an hardline Dawkinsesque atheism.
Which I suspect is not what Gavlar was aiming at
Wapping Blade
Well-Known Member
Indeed. There's nothing like talking to an actual literal religious believer (and realising that they actually believe that the myths described in the Bible physically happened and are not to be interpreted in some metaphorical and poetical way) to destroy one's nuanced attempt to understand religion and see one retreating to an hardline Dawkinsesque atheism.
Which I suspect is not what Gavlar was aiming at
Let alone the history of the Bible being created and what was accepted and rejected from it when creating the church's dogma.
Northyorksblade
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 7,861
- Reaction score
- 8,868
Please move Foxy, nothing to do with Blades
Thanks for your thoughts Darren, I actually look forward to your replies, even if they are vastly different to my thoughts and opinions! In short I really value your input (and yours sellyoak).
I'm in a major rush tonight as i'm about to go and meet some fellow Bible bashers, so whilst I talk to the invisible man in the sky who doesnt exist with them, can you ponder the following quote from my friend and yours Richard Dawkins:
What is he getting at here and how does it affect the world we live in? Do you also believe his thoughts are ludicrous? His conclusion is based on the assumption that there is no God, where does it leave us if he's right?
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.-- Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995), quoted from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)
Fair point
Wapping Blade
Well-Known Member
I think he means that the universe was created to a set of rules like the speed of light and Planck's constant and everything has evolved from there. Human life is right at the end of that evolutionary chain resulting from the Big Bang and in itself is a result of natural selection of genetic mutations, which have no concept of good or evil, hence the "blind, pitiless indifference".
In my thinking, there might be a place for a god like figure that determined the rules that the universe evolved from but I don't believe that there is. Certainly I don't think there's a god that intervenes in this universe.
raul
On the right side of the wrong car
Echoed
Selly
Ask me about Updog...
I think he means that people that look for some sort of reason for everything are deluding themselves. The universe doesn't care if you have that cream cake, take that job, the liberals hold onto Eastleigh or we get relegated or promoted.
The universe simply IS. We are merely a partof hat universe (either inevitable or extremely unlikely depending on your view). And the properties of the universe being suited to just our sort of life isn't a surprise as we ARE here.
Selly
Ask me about Updog...
You can't get bigger than infinite. So God cannot exist as a bigger being than the universe...
I echo what other people say. To my mind the evidence is overwhelming that there is no controlling intelligence in the universe that cares about human beings and that will ensure that, ultimately, good is rewarded and evil punished. As I have said, you can reasonably argue for a deist type God who created the whole shebang and set it in motion and now doesn't interfere; but the possibility of an interventionist God is as likely as there being an invisiible pink elephant in my back garden.
Hi wapping blade,
thanks for your thoughts on this.
interesting stuff, so do you think the universe was created?
and also what would the universe look like if God intervened in it?
cheers,
gavlar
Thanks for your thoughts sellyoak i really appreciate them.
What I dont understand is, virtually all people dont appear to live like that is true.
ive met a lot of athiests (and many of my close friends are athiests). they cry, laugh,
get angry, sad, worry, rejoice about things that they go through.
they dont appear to act like the universe has no purpose and there is no evil or good.
If the universe doesnt care what happens, then why do we who are products of the universe care?
Why do we see suffering on the other side of the world to poor people in afridca
and give a monkeys whether they live or die? why dont we feel indifference?
Why do we feel righteouss anger at stories of kidnappings, murder, rape etc?
it doesnt seem to add up
Similar threads
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?