Spectacularly ridiculous it may be to you, and it of course does profoundly stretch the skeptic's credulity but that doesn't make it false.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Spectacularly ridiculous it may be to you, and it of course does profoundly stretch the skeptic's credulity but that doesn't make it false.
Don't be daft, there was no electricity then...
They just used the dragons to warm them up a bit...
OK, but your only evidence for it is a book that is thousands of years old which is absolutely full of falsehoods and factual inaccuracies. There is literally no evidence of a worldwide flood in the timeline suggested by the bible. The idea of a wooden ship that big has also been proven to be impossible. Also, that certain animals are in certain parts of the world but not others makes the idea ridiculous. The old Kangaroo example is my favourite. "When Noah's ark finally rested atop Mount Ararat, the kangaroos stepped off and hopped 7,726 miles straight to Australia and without any opposable thumbs, they picked up every bone from their own dead as not to leave a trace of their migration. Remarkable isn't it?"
Also, I can't believe I'm even arguing this.
I'd have more important things to ask if indeed one of the thousands of gods we as a species worship did exist, like how could they allow such attrocities to happen on a planet of their creation. Basically along the lines of what Mr Fry says here, he's more eloquent than me.
Sorry if i hijacked the thread for a min there
If you acknowledge the thousands of gods, do you think it likely that a god exists? Or to put it another way, does a god-shaped hole in the species' hearts point to the existence of a deity?
Stephen Fry's outrage is understandable. I think Job chapter 38 offers one response, though I suspect it won't satisfy those who don't believe anyway --> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+38-42&version=KJV
So why not believe in every single religion?
Also, how did the Polar Bears get to the boat in the first place?
I haven't studied the evidence for a worldwide flood because it's a non-issue for me. But I'm sure Google would be able to find something. Just out of interest, do you have any evidence for the existence of your great-great-great grandfather, except for your own existence?
Would you accept the possibility that if there is a God that created the entire universe, he might also also be capable of supporting a wooden ship on water?
Um... They make different claims so they can't all be right.
This doesn't strike me as a killer argument. If you first of all accept that God exists, and that he has the power to create the entire universe, moving a couple of polar bears across the earth shouldn't cause much difficulty! If you don't accept his existence, then of course it becomes a lot harder to explain.
For me no, the existence of belief, and the actual existence of the subject believed in are not related. Otherwise all kinds of insane fairytale characters like Santa and the Easter Bunny would be running around.
Belief in god and religion for me has always been about three things. The first as a way for uneducated civilisations to explain natural phenomenon such as the sun and moon. They can't explain it, it seems all powerful, it's a god... i guess you could also classify creation of life under that too.
Then there's a persons natural need to search for something better in life to latch onto to give them hope, so for example whether that's personal tragedies, addictions, or the unforunatate circumstances you were born under. Country at war, extreme poverty, dictatorship etc.
Then there's the standard practice of passing belief onto children. In countries like England, where christianity really isn't a factor any more for the majority of people, the 'belief' isn't passed onto easily susceptible children, and starts to die out. This practice isn't just related to religion, but any social situaion. For example in simplistic terms, if you tell a enough children white people are better than black, they'll believe it and a racist society will grow. Places like the middle east, and america, where religion is still a massive part of adult life, means it's passed on to children, and the cycle of belief continues.
So for me there's really no relation to mass belief in deities making any difference in the chance of one existing.
It of course does profoundly stretch the religious person's credulity but that doesn't make them false.
I don't follow.
Even if I were to agree with you on the three reasons you bring up (which I don't), they say nothing about the truth of the proposition that God exists. Just because the way in which a belief originated is flawed, doesn't mean the conclusion is therefore false.
The problem is truth is an unprovable concept when it comes to religion, there's currently no way for proof to exist, not is there a shred of evidence.
That only leaves us belief based on faith. Which isn't a truth, it's a hope, it's living your life a certain way in the hope and faith that the deity you've chosen to believe in exists. That belief has to originate from somewhere, and that's for me where my earlier post comes in.
For some reason, the religious seem to rely on the truth of a god originating from the fact that enough people believe in it. If enough people believed in a sack of potatoes acting as a parachute while jumping from a plane that wouldn't make it true.
So magic is your argument. Good talk. I'm out.
I disagree with your assertion that there isn't a shred of evidence, but the rest of your argument cuts both ways. Atheism is also based on faith. Perhaps some people hope it is true.
The argument that the idea of the 'God-shaped hole' suggests the existence of a God is more subtle than the sack of potatoes parachute caricature that you drew.
God doesn't do magic.
Yeah. Atheism isn't based on faith.
How did the Kangaroos get to Australia then?
Why are there never any real straight answers about what "should be" the most clear cut topic of them all? You could answer every single question here with "because god, and if you're not a believer you won't get it", and no one could really argue that. It's the grandest get out of jail free card in the history of debating.
I just think that the creator of the universe would be able to present a better case than that. For someone who supposedly created literally everything by snapping his fingers, one ghostwritten book released in one small part of the world in a time where camels were the fanciest transportation around is perhaps not the best way to tell everyone that you are their god. He can ship polar bears and kangaroos across the globe but can't distribute a book (or himself) to more than one place? A book which is filled with inaccuracies, horrible commands and "tests" and supposed miracles, which are all downplayed or interpreted in more and more elaborate ways the more they are talked about.
Atheism isn't faith based, it's evidence based. There's no hoping that god doesn't exist, there just isn't any evidence that any deity exists outside of the mind of believers.
You believe in it, don't you?
No idea! But then I'm not the omniscient one.
I believe 1+1=2. This is not "faith".
I think what He's achieved is magnificent, in that He's revealed of Himself just the right amount so that we can freely choose to come to know Him. If it was a slam dunk case, would people come to know him out of choice or out of necessity?
And that's your argument for what, precisely? I, too, believe 1+1=2.
I don't "believe" in atheism. I'm atheist because I don't believe in yours, or any other god.
You're mixing up the different definitions of faith. In religious terms, atheism is the absence of faith.
To answer your question... let's say He tells you He provided plenty of evidence of His existence. What evidence? I suspect you'd reply. Well, He might say, I created the universe, fine-tuned it, provided you with the idea of God, gave you an understanding of morality, an appreciation of aesthetic values, free-will, and sent Jesus.
And you'd reply 'ah yes, but were there any heat lamps in Noah's ark'?
I just don't think it would make much headway. I may be wrong, though.
No, an atheist is someone who asserts the proposition that there is no God. It's a knowledge claim.
It isn't.
Fixed.
If you make the person and know which way they will choose when you make them, isn't that a pointless test?
It isn't a knowledge claim. Its the absence of a knowledge claim.
Headway to what though? Where is my answer leading me?
That's completely incorrect. Atheism is not about beliefs, what you are putting forward is the most basic misconception of what Atheism is.
I thank you though, for bothering at all to answer our questions. It's appreciated my friend