I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Prime Factor
-
As YB says, the myth of the tooth fairy is easily dispelled. For one to say that “it is impossible for the tooth fairy to have created the world” is something that is a little more difficult to dispell, except for the fact that our parents have announced that they ARE the tooth fairy, and they never created the world.
The possibility that God never created the world (universe/orderly and non-orderly systems) IS impossible to show any evidence for. Therefore it is unscientific to say that “factually, intelligent design never took place”. That would imply that you knew it. You might say “due to O’s Razor it is philosophically unlikely that the universe needs to have a creator”, but that is playing with likelyhoods based on your take on philosophy.
With regards to YB’s argument based on 85% of the world, i think the point here is that God has obviously influenced a great many people, possibly many more than might be diagnosed schizophrenic/schizo-typal etc. If only 2-4% of the world believed in God and that corresponded to the numbers of people with mental illnesses, one might begin to suggest a correllation.
Your argument against miracles because “the Shroud was not likely one” is also poor.
YB’s reference to the existance of the Catholic Church is not that unsound. The fact that Christianity has had the kind of staying power that it HAS had, especially despite early attempts to wipe it out, suggests that there is something moving in her people.
Also, has it been proven that opium and religious beliefs stimulate the same part of the brain? Or that the two have an identical effect? If we were to take a person in pain, sit him in a church for an hour, would that be worth an hour’s worth of a morphine-derivative? No, what a silly thing to say.
Also - please note that the New Testament and words of Jesus are significantly different than what the Israelites were ordered to do in order to establish their home. Jesus is very clear on the “no killing” bit - “turn the other cheek”, etc.
Finally, your deft ability to counter an argument with “you’re a fool” does not seem as effective as some of your other ones. Are you slipping? -
@cystic:
As YB says, the myth of the tooth fairy is easily dispelled. For one to say that “it is impossible for the tooth fairy to have created the world” is something that is a little more difficult to dispell, except for the fact that our parents have announced that they ARE the tooth fairy, and they never created the world.
As the tooth fairy, there is an human being (well, some human being) behind every religion.
That would imply that you knew it. You might say “due to O’s Razor it is philosophically unlikely that the universe needs to have a creator”, but that is playing with likelyhoods based on your take on philosophy.
If there is no reason to believe in an intelligent design, if as we go further in science, everything seem to be natural, then how can you say it is unscientific to say god does exist ? How can it be unscientif to tell a theory is false when there is nothing to support it ? Science is the enemy of religion, when science gain knowledge, religion loose power. Just look how much god is small now.
With regards to YB’s argument based on 85% of the world, i think the point here is that God has obviously influenced a great many people, possibly many more than might be diagnosed schizophrenic/schizo-typal etc. If only 2-4% of the world believed in God and that corresponded to the numbers of people with mental illnesses, one might begin to suggest a correllation.
Here CC you support an argument just because it go by your side just like when you supported YB’s circular argument, which is not very logic. The fact that people believe something to be true does mean it is true. I cannot believe someone can use argumentum ad populum as anything near a method of understand what is true and what is false. Then why don’t you go outside asking people how to treat X sickness ? Most people don’t have the knowledge to be atheist, when you don’t know how nature work, how evolution and how logic work; god seem to be theonly answer. (note that i am not saying Theist lack education and logic, nor do they lack intelligence, i just think they lack objectivity).
Your argument against miracles because “the Shroud was not likely one” is also poor.
I never said that, but the Shround of Turin is a good exemple of how blind people are when they face religion. Also the argument of Miracles is by itself very poor… it is an argument for nothing. Lots of phenomean attributes in ancient time to god(s) are now scientificly explained. A mircales is something we don’t understand, and that we will likely understand someday, claiming it is some sort of divine message it what i call a lack of vision/objectivity.
YB’s reference to the existance of the Catholic Church is not that unsound.
I don’t believe you really support this kind of argument, this is using very poor, demagogic rethoric ! Just look at how christianism spread in the world ! Certainly not with tender words about god’s love. It is more an argument about the religion conformism, it does not change.
Also, has it been proven that opium and religious beliefs stimulate the same part of the brain? Or that the two have an identical effect? If we were to take a person in pain, sit him in a church for an hour, would that be worth an hour’s worth of a morphine-derivative? No, what a silly thing to say.
You misunderstood something in the opium analogy, religion is certainly not for physical pain. But for moral/psychological pain. It is far more easy to go in life, following some rules, don’t have to think about how the world came to existance, and to believe you will have eternity just for following some rules…
Also - please note that the New Testament and words of Jesus are significantly different than what the Israelites were ordered to do in order to establish their home. Jesus is very clear on the “no killing” bit - “turn the other cheek”, etc.
… still it is the same god, no ? Jesus is the messager of the god who give order to Joshua ?
Finally, your deft ability to counter an argument with “you’re a fool” does not seem as effective as some of your other ones. Are you slipping?
In fact it is full of logical fallacies, i don’t said he was a fool (only when he said he want communist to go on working camp). And no, i am not slipping, are you ? But when someone he saying that the fact most people on earth believe in god constitute an argument for religion; that is just really funny and the only answer i can give to that is; this is fallacious. If i say; X is the greatest genius, he did not believe in god, then god does not exist, that is clearly fallacious, what will you say to that ?
-
I have to side with FinsterniS on this topic.
God center of the brain??? never heard of that?
Doesn’t sound very scientific.85% of people belive in “God”…ummm no.
Miracles do not constitute evidence for/of a God. If in fact you belive in miracles in the first place.Oh, and about the tooth fariy, 100% of children belive in it before their parents tell them different.
-
“85% of people belive in “God”…ummm no.”
I think what YB was trying to say is that 85% of the world does believe in a monotheistic or pluraltheistic religion, which is likely true. However this still isn’t a good argument if you think that Christianity is the “true” religion and that the Christian God is the “correct” one.
-
@TG:
“85% of people belive in “God”…ummm no.”
I think what YB was trying to say is that 85% of the world does believe in a monotheistic or pluraltheistic religion, which is likely true. However this still isn’t a good argument if you think that Christianity is the “true” religion and that the Christian God is the “correct” one.
I’m assuming he is referring to the Christan God.
It doesn’t really matter what God he uses, its not evidence.The other 15% of people belive in Thor :lol:
Therefore Thor exists -
yeah, that’s the problem with Christianity. Some Asian religions have been around a lot longer - are those people before Christianity “saved?”
-
@TG:
yeah, that’s the problem with Christianity. Some Asian religions have been around a lot longer - are those people before Christianity “saved?”[/quote
From what I know, they would not be saved unless they converted from their religion.
Not that it matters anyway, its all nonsense.
-
You’re right, why believe in the first place?
Though you can never be too safe – which is why I try not to break any moral codes. :roll: -
You don’t have to be a religious person to be a good person with morals, thats for sure.
You dig on what I’m saying? :o
-
“You don’t have to be a religious person to be a good person with morals, thats for sure.”
Ha, you would be a welcome addition to my religion. :wink:
“You dig on what I’m saying?”
Right on soul brother! 8)
-
@TG:
“You don’t have to be a religious person to be a good person with morals, thats for sure.”
Ha, you would be a welcome addition to my religion. :wink:
“You dig on what I’m saying?”
Right on soul brother! 8)
LOL, tight
-
First Ghoul, I said that 85% of the population believes in a mono theistic God.
33% are Christians
Over 20% are Muslims
20% are Hindu
right there you have about 3/4 of the population
plus Sihk,Jews, Zoroastrians, etc.
You are right, the number is more like
80%
My mistake.
Note: All except for Hindus, believe in the exact same God (rather than simply are monotheistic)
Budhists, while not exactly theistic, kind of count.
With them it would be More like 85%Second, Ghoul and Moses, what reason is their to be moral without religion? If you steal something, and are not caught, is there any reason to feel guilty if it does not really hurt the victim?
Third, Fisternis, no one has ever had the reason to believe that the tooth fairy is not a lie told to children. The same is not true about religion.
Fourth, Fisternis, your comment about how that it is stupid believe that the uncaused cause is God, that is the most basic definition of God is uncaused causer. That is general. Christians contend that the uncaused causer has revealed himself to his children.
Fifth, Moses, what denomination is your sister?
Sixth, Moses, take this test now:
-
“Fifth, Moses, what denomination is your sister?”
Is this the ‘religious discussion’ you are talking about, Sir yourbuttocks? I am Anglican and attend St. Thomas’s Episcopal Church. However, I am also a believer that anybody with a divinity toward Christ shall be accepted by his good graces.
“Sixth, Moses, take this test now:”
I took your test, and I came up centrist, is this good or not?
-
My support of the “85%” argument is simply that if it is unlikely that the concept of “god” to be the product of some psychosis, or a simple irrational (childlike - if you will) belief - i.e. there are more numbers supporting a real “god” than the number of crazy people who also support a real “toothfairy”. Also - most people do not know how to treat a sickness, however clinical trials use many people to show us how to treat an illness, and we use the numbers to determine whether or not to use a drug.
Also - it is unscientific to say “God created the world - i know for a fact” just as it is also unscientific to say “There is no God - i know for a fact”.
Also science is not the enemy of religion, but a complimentor of it. But we’ve been through this before.
With regards to the staying power of Christianity - i was referring to the fact that so many people are martyred for their faith, keeping Christianity and various sects of it alive. That’s kind of: A) crazy or B) evidence of something powerful working in their lives.quote: “But when someone he saying that the fact most people on earth believe in god constitute an argument for religion; that is just really funny and the only answer i can give to that is; this is fallacious. If i say; X is the greatest genius, he did not believe in god, then god does not exist, that is clearly fallacious, what will you say to that ?”
i would probably say :asphinctersayswhat?
Really, i don’t know. you havn’t really posed a question. You are correct, that statement would be fallacious, but again, i think that YB’s argument is that there might be something behind a concept if it is widely supported. Maybe not always a good thing, but there is a real force behind it. -
First YB, Most buddhist does not believe in a personnal god, they are NOT theist in a very large proportion.
And i am a left-liberal, so you have the right to call me a leftish-european.
@cystic:
My support of the “85%” argument is simply that if it is unlikely that the concept of “god” to be the product of some psychosis, or a simple irrational (childlike - if you will) belief - i.e. there are more numbers supporting a real “god” than the number of crazy people who also support a real “toothfairy”.
I partially agree
First i agree that it is not a mental sickess, but it IS an irrational belief for most people.
We must look at the history behind religion, in the first step of judaism, the Hebrew create a global philosophy, just like Plato and Aristotle, that was an explanation of Moral, of the Human race, of Animals and also of Nature. A religion is a philosophy frozen in time, it does not evolve, or if it does; very slowly.
Also - most people do not know how to treat a sickness, however clinical trials use many people to show us how to treat an illness, and we use the numbers to determine whether or not to use a drug.
Most people does not have any reason to believe in god.
Also - it is unscientific to say “God created the world - i know for a fact” just as it is also unscientific to say “There is no God - i know for a fact”. Also science is not the enemy of religion, but a complimentor of it. But we’ve been through this before.
I disagree, there is nothing unscientific not to believe in a myth created by human being 2 000 years ago, if there was evidence for god, i would be more sceptical, but what i heard is only fallacious argument, scientific deformation, attack against current scientific theory (well, that’s a fallacious argument) and the “There is so much evidence you just don’t see them” argument… So i won’t be convinced easily.
I have not a lot of certitude; but god is a lie. I am as certain he does not exist as i am certain the earth is not flat, and every year.
With regards to the staying power of Christianity - i was referring to the fact that so many people are martyred for their faith, keeping Christianity and various sects of it alive. That’s kind of: A) crazy or B) evidence of something powerful working in their lives.
We can argue forever about it, i cannot disprove god by A and you cannot prove god by B. But people die for other false god, for other religion, human sacriface were common in some polytheistic religion. Were they fool ? Sure they did not all decided to do so… but somes does.
Really, i don’t know. you havn’t really posed a question. You are correct, that statement would be fallacious, but again, i think that YB’s argument is that there might be something behind a concept if it is widely supported. Maybe not always a good thing, but there is a real force behind it.
Sure there is a real force behind religion ! The will of those who strongly believe is the force behind religion. People in general are really slow, i don’t think evolution is a very common belief, while most scientist are’nt working on proving evolution occur anymore but just how it occur.
-
Falk, where did the matter for the Big Bang come from?
as i said SIGH:
the matter (and antimatter) came into being out of energy. Where does the energy come from would be your next question…. The answer is: where is zero potential energy? Maybe we are “deep in the red” with our (local, solar system, galactic) energy balance, and if you add up all the universe come up to zero… do you know? can your god tell me?
And of course: why does god create a universe that will turn into a huge totally lifeless, totally formless sea of (very low frequency) radiation? Any reason for that?If God does not exist, why then do:
…85% of the population believe in him?
Well, at least 85% do not understand quantum mechanics. Why does it work anyway?
…natural law/intrinsic concience exist?
natural laws exist, they are uncaused cause, therefore they must be god.
…miracles, such as Fatima, hundreds in this century alone, occur?
…people have a built in need for him? (God-Center of the brain)You put way to much interpretation into the “god module”. The egg was there before the hen? The hen before the egg?
This “god module” seems in religious ppl to be more active than in others. So, i cliam, you want a god, because your god-module is very active.
See:
http://www.parascope.com/articles/slips/fs22_3.htm
or for a funny view:
http://www.catalaw.com/detox/reverse/10.shtml…the Catholic Church, the longest lasting institution in the history of man, continue to thrive, continue to exist, even after periodic corruption, schisms, revolts, etc.? Every HUMAN institution is crushed by similiar burdens.
what do you understand exactly by institution?
-
Second, Ghoul and Moses, what reason is their to be moral without religion? If you steal something, and are not caught, is there any reason to feel guilty if it does not really hurt the victim?
Maybe because you don’t want people to steal from you? That would be the idea behind the christianity (an i dea which i like), but you don’t need a god for defending this concept, as it is a “good” and admirable concept on its own.
Fourth, Fisternis, your comment about how that it is stupid believe that the uncaused cause is God, that is the most basic definition of God is uncaused causer. That is general. Christians contend that the uncaused causer has revealed himself to his children.
Well, if you define god as this, then of courseit must have been “the earliest” thing
Sixth, Moses, take this test now:
According to the quiz i am left-liberal. Nothing new to me.
-
“Second, Ghoul and Moses, what reason is their to be moral without religion? If you steal something, and are not caught, is there any reason to feel guilty if it does not really hurt the victim?”
It’s my obligation to the Code of Honor. My parents are atheist, yet they raised me with a adherence to morals and integrity. By saying otherwise, it would seem that only those with “religion” have morals. False. I know of plenty of “Christians” that commit heinous crimes with no respect or reason for moral standards or conduct. Even in pre-Christendom Japan, there was the Code of the Bushido that was obeyed with honor and respected - even if it meant paying it with their lives.
“Sixth, Moses, take this test now:”
I took your little “test” and I came up with Right, Libertarian Centrist. Unsurprising, isn’t it? However, this test was poorly done. It has such questions as “Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults,” yet there are no questions on abortion, which is a more “important” (meaning more debated) issue between the parties. Then it places other inconsistencies by placing military under “personal issues,” when it is also a “economic issue.” It limits itself 2 categories, a major fallacy. Then again it is a simple “test,” and provides no clear indication whatsoever when following political agendas and guidelines. I would like to top it off by saying, your test came from a libertarian website, correct? I found this to be a little partial (trap to lure unsuspecting people into their flock)
-
First Ghoul, I said that 85% of the population believes in a mono theistic God.
33% are Christians
Over 20% are Muslims
20% are Hindu
right there you have about 3/4 of the population
plus Sihk,Jews, Zoroastrians, etc.
You are right, the number is more like
80%
My mistake.
Note: All except for Hindus, believe in the exact same God (rather than simply are monotheistic)
Budhists, while not exactly theistic, kind of count.
With them it would be More like 85%Second, Ghoul and Moses, what reason is their to be moral without religion? If you steal something, and are not caught, is there any reason to feel guilty if it does not really hurt the victim?
Third, Fisternis, no one has ever had the reason to believe that the tooth fairy is not a lie told to children. The same is not true about religion.
Fourth, Fisternis, your comment about how that it is stupid believe that the uncaused cause is God, that is the most basic definition of God is uncaused causer. That is general. Christians contend that the uncaused causer has revealed himself to his children.
Fifth, Moses, what denomination is your sister?
Sixth, Moses, take this test now:
Actually. you said 85% of the people belive in god
You suggestion that one has to be religious to have morals is ridiculous.
I dont have to worship something to be kind or have decent character.Why would anyone worship something that demands it or punishes you in a burning “Hell”
Makes you wonder why Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels revolted and who the real malevolent ones are?1/3…thats alot of fallen angels.
-
“Why would anyone worship something that demands it or punishes you in a burning “Hell””
It is meant to keep people in check.
Suggested Topics
