Does God exist? (13 Viewers)

[dan964]

If the desire to believe in something supernatural is not expressed in our genes, what exactly explains the cargo god phenomenon?

I wouldn't know. But at this point, just as science cannot explain certain things, and it would silly to presume God's existence, so I think at this point, the existence of a supposed genetic influence. This may help you with (yes it is wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
which might be a more tenable explanation, than simple reduction to genetic and chemical processes.

I am kind of glad that your kind of explanation doesn't fit current evidence. Otherwise the same treatment provided to those with the "gay gene" should be afforded to those with the "religious gene", which would shut down all debate on this thread and any reasonable discourse on the topic (which has kind of happened because of the prominent popularity of the former in some circles, regardless of whether it has or has not been verified as such)

I notice you didn't say "That is neglecting some of the positive advancements made by those BECAUSE they held to a viewpoint other than of paganism."

Does it really matter? My point still stands regardless of how well or how poorly I phrased it.
Yes I find that not every religion makes positive advancements, radical Islam certainly doesn't.
It seems to be just dismissing all things. Also my claim was more explicit than general. I agree that some religions have it completely wrong; yet I can still respectively debate/disagree without need for violence, killings or blackmail.

Advancements and atrocities come from PEOPLE, irrespective of their beliefs.

I don't dispute that. You don't seem to argue this consistently, but ok.
I would think that tends to send something about the nature of people, rather than the nature of religion/ideology/anti-religion etc.

However religious belief pollutes the minds of otherwise good people with hatred towards people outside their religion, and feeds the bigotry of bad people, often providing a means to legitimise their bigotry.

So this is the real heart of your claim. Is it strictly a generalisation? Even then my original example was a particular religion.
Atheism and the advance of secularism has been used as bigotry against religious people.

Conclusion: all humans are bigots someway or another; to some other group of people.

Religion acts as a magnet for these people, knowing the power it gives them over the masses.

Again another opium for the masses kind of statement.
Just for the info seekers: http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/marx01.htm on the statement.

To quote a response:
"Marx’s contention was that religion gives people artificial, illusory happiness—like opium does to a drug addict—and freeing people from that unrealistic illusion was part of building a better society."

I genuinely think that your claim about religion being a crutch/or like opium only stems out of a lack of a belief in god's existence and/or a firm belief that God does not exist. (belief=faith here)

Yes, our society has borrowed much CULTURE and legal practice from religious groups, just as religion has borrowed culture from non-religious groups and practices. Any borrowings seen as 'good' are typically incidental to the actual belief.

Are you sure you meant incidental: "happening as a result of"?? Again a claim, provide an example at the least (I cannot think of any, I am sure there are).
Also 'good' is so subjective (sarcasm) in today's society.

Yes some religion has indeed borrowed practices etc. But you will have to provide examples, and unlike the general scope of the debate, where claims are more hotly contested and possibly harder to verify in some measures (depending on your definitions/limitations and the like, which has already been discussed enough in history/this thread)... claims about the origins of one's belief system are more likely going to have more easily verifiable claims about it.

And paganism is NOT atheism.

No it is not, well spotted, but it was somewhat "secular equivalent" in the 2nd century for instance before Constantine.
A lot of secular movements either find their origins in some aberration of the Christianity teaching (or what is typically characterised as Christian teaching); while some tend to overlook that in their development to paganism...

A lot of skepticism and atheistic thought, came out in reaction to parts of Christianity and Islam. My point is that regardless of who you claim has made the most significant contribution (which again is subjective, I recall a previous discussion with DrSoccerball on this with yourself from memory somewhere on this thread); that without the present of religion; or the counter-reaction to religion; then such changes wouldn't have happened.

Here is an interesting article, not that I hold much to opinion:
http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...christianity-bulwark-against-something-worse/
===
So there is no indication of whether the world would have been better off...
Your underlying argument seems to be:
1. God does not exist (topic of discussion - debated lots)
2. Religion exists and makes claims about God (known fact)
3. Because of (1), there must be some explanation for why people are religious (3)
4. Religion is opiate for the masses etc. etc.

The problem with is that (1) does not imply (3) or anything remotely similar. If we can make the argument, that Paradoxica has done, (against one of the arguments for God's existence called the ontological argument from memory), that the universe does not need an explanation for its existence, why would the presence of one subset of a subset of the existence of the universe.

 

[braintic]

Time to add more votes to this poll.

 

[cosmo 2]

zzzz

 

[Squar3root]

God doesn't exist

if he is so perfect why did he invent so many dickheads, dishonest muslims and people who question his existence

 

[dan964]

God doesn't exist
if he is so perfect why did he invent so many dickheads, dishonest muslims and people who question his existence

I don't think the existence of unbelievers proves the non-existence of God. It is like saying the existence of capitalists (non-commies) proves that communism doesn't exist.
Nor does it put a blemish on his character. A good king is still good even if his subjects are totally rebellious and jerks.

 

[Squar3root]

I don't think the existence of unbelievers proves the non-existence of God. It is like saying the existence of capitalists (non-commies) proves that communism doesn't exist.
Nor does it put a blemish on his character. A good king is still good even if his subjects are totally rebellious and jerks.

But a king does definitely exist and there is no doubt about that. Some of The kings subjects will not be loyal to him and that's understandable. Also the king did not create the people in his whole kingdom so it's not the best analogy to use.

If I created something, i would want it to behave exactly how i want. Doesn't make sense to me that someone so perfect would flaw every one of his creations

 

[Queenroot]

Well If god does exist, he's a cunt like everyone else.

 

[dan964]

Maybe the analogy of family is better? A father can love his children but his children can still be jerks to him.

Doesn't make sense to me that someone so perfect would flaw every one of his creations

Fair enough. Probably frustrating why didn't God force us to love him and make it impossible for us not to follow him.

Although, it comes down to whether God is responsible for his creature's rebellion.
For Christians it is the concept of sin, and the origin of sin. It brings up a really contentious discussion about free-will and God giving his humanity the choice to rebel.


Paul says "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God."

Basically the question is why on earth did God create the tree for instance or created the devil? Most answer with free-will

Using the family analogy, parents and children have a natural relationship with their children. However, children to some degree can rebel against their parent's and disobey (and many do). But maybe children wouldn't learn how much their parents really do care for them, unless seeing the affects of disobedience?

It is a big can of worms...

 

[SammyT123]

Can someone tldr this thread thx

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

 

[SammyT123]

Also, what is the single most convincing argument for the existence of God (in your opinions)?. I can't see why a rational person would believe in a magical immortal dude .

Especially when there are so many scientific innacuracies within the Bible or any other holy text.

 

[dan964]

Can someone tldr this thread thx

tldr?

 

[SammyT123]

tldr?

Summarise the main points , the first post seems to only include arguments against the existence of God

Tldr; too lazy didn't read
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

 

[dan964]

Also, what is the single most convincing argument for the existence of God (in your opinions)?. I can't see why a rational person would believe in a magical immortal dude .

Especially when there are so many scientific innacuracies within the Bible or any other holy text.

Not to mention scientific inaccuracies in the past with regards to any text, not just the religious. (Aristotle cannot certainly be entirely right).
You would have to mention specific examples.

By magical I presume you mean "relating to, using, or resembling magic." You probably need to explain yourself.

Rational is defined as "based on or in accordance with reason or logic"
Reason is defined as "a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.:"

You will find that Christians generally are convinced of creation pointing to some what the existence of God;
and are convinced of the resurrection of Jesus. That is our reason for belief, because we are convinced that Jesus is the "real deal" if you would like.
This is something that has somewhat some historical bearings.


Note: Also just to really stir the pot, if God exists, then it is perfectly rational to believe in him.

Your real question is on the accuracies in the Bible. If you are referring to the first part of the Bible, Genesis 1-11, that will depend on interpretation.
If you are referring to measurements and inaccuracies: most can be attribute to the inexactness of the science/maths at the time, of when for instance the temple was constructed.

The Bible was written originally with those people in mind, it would make no sense to them, if it started teaching things about the universe which at the time, had no proof or evidence for, or that we only know now, I don't think its relevance would have lasted; mainly because it wasn't intended as a
scientific text.

What you find there isn't a single argument by itself, but a collection of arguments.

Besides I wouldn't believe in a God that I could just make up in the moment in my mind by reason/logic.

 

[SammyT123]

Not to mention scientific inaccuracies in the past with regards to any text, not just the religious. (Aristotle cannot certainly be entirely right).
You would have to mention specific examples.

By magical I presume you mean "relating to, using, or resembling magic." You probably need to explain yourself.

Rational is defined as "based on or in accordance with reason or logic"
Reason is defined as "a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.:"

You will find that Christians generally are convinced of creation pointing to some what the existence of God;
and are convinced of the resurrection of Jesus. That is our reason for belief, because we are convinced that Jesus is the "real deal" if you would like.
This is something that has somewhat some historical bearings.


Note: Also just to really stir the pot, if God exists, then it is perfectly rational to believe in him.

Your real question is on the accuracies in the Bible. If you are referring to the first part of the Bible, Genesis 1-11, that will depend on interpretation.
If you are referring to measurements and inaccuracies: most can be attribute to the inexactness of the science/maths at the time, of when for instance the temple was constructed.

The Bible was written originally with those people in mind, it would make no sense to them, if it started teaching things about the universe which at the time, had no proof or evidence for, or that we only know now, I don't think its relevance would have lasted; mainly because it wasn't intended as a
scientific text.

What you find there isn't a single argument by itself, but a collection of arguments.

Besides I wouldn't believe in a God that I could just make up in the moment in my mind by reason/logic.

Isn't the Bible taken as the word of God?
I'm sure God would know that the Earth orbits the sun

My second point wasn't clear, my bad
If the Bible has severe innacuracies in it, why trust it?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

 

[SammyT123]

The Bible was written originally with those people in mind, it would make no sense to them, if it started teaching things about the universe which at the time, had no proof or evidence for, or that we only know now, I don't think its relevance would have lasted; mainly because it wasn't intended as a
scientific text.

But the Bible DID teach things for which no proof existed.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

 

[dan964]

But the Bible DID teach things for which no proof existed.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

yeah and? we don't yet have a proof for the Riemann Hypothesis? what is your point?

you may need to provide concrete examples

 

[dan964]

Isn't the Bible taken as the word of God?
I'm sure God would know that the Earth orbits the sun

No where in the Bible, does it say that the Sun orbits the Earth. The Bible has been used incorrectly in the past.

My second point wasn't clear, my bad
If the Bible has severe innacuracies in it, why trust it?
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

That is one big if. I take the new testament as fairly accurate because of its preservation. In regards to the Old Testament, it would depend on what inaccuracy you are referring to.
I take the Bible not as scientific, but needs to read as more literature than a research publication.

 

[SammyT123]

No where in the Bible, does it say that the Sun orbits the Earth. The Bible has been used incorrectly in the past.

That is one big if. I take the new testament as fairly accurate because of its preservation. In regards to the Old Testament, it would depend on what inaccuracy you are referring to.
I take the Bible not as scientific, but needs to read as more literature than a research publication.

How can something blatantly contradict itself so many times. It amazes me. If my GP contradicted himself this many times I'd be wary believing anything he says.
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html

Can you concede that if any text has severe inaccuracies and contradictions, the legitimacy of the author is hindered ? (Any text, whether it be the Bible or the uni textbook you use)

 

[dan964]

How can something blatantly contradict itself so many times. It amazes me. If my GP contradicted himself this many times I'd be wary believing anything he says.
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html

Can you concede that if any text has severe inaccuracies and contradictions, the legitimacy of the author is hindered ? (Any text, whether it be the Bible or the uni textbook you use)

I won't be perfect, but some of those I will/can address. Hold on a sec.

 

[dan964]

Most of the supposed contradictions can be explained by the fact that they are corroborating accounts. The fact that they differ on the details debunks the claim that they just copied off each account, and show they are independent accounts.

Think of it as different people recounting the same story, they will tell it slightly different, but the important things will be consistent.
Historians specifically apply this to the resurrection, as this establishes 4 separate accounts of the event. Not to mention other New Testament writings.
Some of the objections are based on misunderstandings of particular Christian teachings or teachings of Jesus, e.g. the Trinity; especially a lot of the ones to do with Pauls.
(Note: Mark 16:16 onwards should not be counted)
-----
Here are just a couple addressed, as I really won't be able to have the time to address all of them.
[1] & [6] Technical Explanation:
One is tracing lineage to Joseph, the other to Mary. The translation isn't super clear for Luke, but that is the difference. The phrasing in Luke "son so it was thought of" was to alert the reader of the non-convention of taking the mother's line instead of the father's line. (But was written as such to demonstrate the theological significance but that is another point).
[2] Actually it is very likely that Matthew is giving Joseph's perspective and Luke is giving Mary's perspective. Two different announcements, and hardly contradictory.
[3] 12 years pass, the parents could have quite forgotten or not fully understood what was said to them 12 years earlier.
[5] Matthew deliberately omitted generations in his genealogy. (7 was symbolic number)
[6] - see [1] above
[7] Peter was called Cephas as well as Simon. Paul was also called Saul. Common practice for people to have multiple names. Emmanuel is more of an allusion to Isaiah 9:6, it means "God with us"
[8] Argument from ignorance. We don't know whether John the Baptist fled or not; or anything concerning him. Some make the claim that John's father was killed, but really I don't know.
[11] John 14:30 taken out of context. It doesn't say Satan has no interest in Jesus. It says that he has no power/hold over me, something completely different. Claim made is false or misleading.
[12] Omission of information on part of Mark or John, doesn't mean contradiction.
[13] Matthew 11:1-3 taken out of context. Even, John the Baptist, had his doubts while in prison.
[14] John's Gospel makes no mention of Jesus beginning his ministry in Galilee. He was baptising but maybe that was not considered as part of his teaching ministry, which is emphasised by Mark.
[15] Different perspective, not a contradiction.
[16] Matthew passage doesn't state who God is addressing. Claim made is false.
[17] Would have to look into the chronology in John.

If you would like particular ones addressed, send a PM, because I probably need to head to bed now!