People who believe in god are broken

[questionposter]

 

This does not help to logically figure out if religious people are broken or not. I suppose you can ironically believe it does though. Please use words next time.

Whether you like it or not, religion has helped form society, because people didn't have the scientific understandings and many philosophical views we have now, the only way they could explain things in ancient is god or god(s), and if god has some rules as to what not to do, you would follow them or risk being eternally damned.

Not only that, but religions like Jesus's advocate the rich giving to the poor, and many people were and still are poor.

Edited May 7, 2012 by questionposter

[John Cuthber]

I don't see how an axiom can contradict itself unless it specifically states it,

 

Keep reading this bit until you do see how it contradicts itself.

 

"god can do anything" is such an axiom.

 

Can God set Himself a task that He can't accomplish?

 

Because, if He can't do it then He can't do everything.

On the other hand, if he can do it then that task shows that He can't do everything.

 

The axiom you have chosen is paradoxical and, starting from a paradox is a pointless way to go about things.

[questionposter]

Keep reading this bit until you do see how it contradicts itself.

 

"god can do anything" is such an axiom.

 

Can God set Himself a task that He can't accomplish?

 

Because, if He can't do it then He can't do everything.

On the other hand, if he can do it then that task shows that He can't do everything.

 

The axiom you have chosen is paradoxical and, starting from a paradox is a pointless way to go about things.

 

How does the having ability to do something mean you have to do it? I have the ability to jump into the volcano. Does that mean I'm going to do it? I have the ability to drown a sack of puppies. Does that mean I'm going to do it?

Actually, I'm not even sure if "god can do anything" is actually a part of the Holy bible, that might have just been a vibe I got from it.

Edited May 7, 2012 by questionposter

[Moontanman]

This does not help to logically figure out if religious people are broken or not. I suppose you can ironically believe it does though. Please use words next time.

Whether you like it or not, religion has helped form society, because people didn't have the scientific understandings and many philosophical views we have now, the only way they could explain things in ancient is god or god(s), and if god has some rules as to what not to do, you would follow them or risk being eternally damned.

Not only that, but religions like Jesus's advocate the rich giving to the poor, and many people were and still are poor.

 

 

Whether you like it or not all you are doing is making unsupported assertions about things you have little knowledge of and nothing but assumptions of what you think religion is and says...

[ydoaPs]

Not that religious people are broken, but here is a playlist on YouTube of short videos discussing some of the MANY MANY ways our psychology make humans in general irrational and susceptible to religious belief.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 7, 2012 by ydoaPs

[John Cuthber]

How does the having ability to do something mean you have to do it? I have the ability to jump into the volcano. Does that mean I'm going to do it? I have the ability to drown a sack of puppies. Does that mean I'm going to do it?

Actually, I'm not even sure if "god can do anything" is actually a part of the Holy bible, that might have just been a vibe I got from it.

Why have you replied to an assertion that nobody made?

 

Nobody said God had to do anything.

 

But I did point out that there is at least one thing He is not able to do, even if He wishes to.

Either He is unable to set himself a task He can't perform, or He can't perform that task.

 

It really is a paradox whether you like it or not.

 

Also, if "God can do anything" isn't an axiom (and it shouldn't be) then it kills your earlier assertion.

So whether it's in the Bible or not doesn't matter, you can't rely on it (which is what we said in the first place).

Here is a reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Edited May 7, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Moontanman]

True, but science works in a similar way. The main axiom being that your observations are what you measure of reality. The structure of religion can still be built upon logical steps.

Noah can't fit that many animals on a boat ---> god can do anything ---> god can fit that many animals on a boat.

 

Noah's Ark can be shown to be false simply by the existence of echinoderms, if god can do anything why did he need and ark to begin with?

 

 

It's unlikely that the specific religion like Christianity would have survived this long if it was as illogical as you make it out to be.

It's more likely that it's been abused and altered over the years.

 

 

Again, logic has nothing to do with religion and the Christianity you see today is afar cry from the religion is was before the enlightenment, it has been gelded and no longer kills and tortures people who disagree with the churches authority, but not because the church suddenly decided it was wrong. The church was forced to relinquish it's absolute control over the people.

 

Now you know how God works.

 

No, now you know why disproving god is impossible without have god like powers as well.

 

 

I didn't say he was likely to exist, that was your assumption, I'm virtually completely atheist, not believing in any religious, magical or mystical aspect of any part of the universe, but if your going to try and say people are broken for believing in something or say we should simply assume something because it seems likely when really it can't be proven either way, I'm going to step in. I merely find it very unlikely god exists. However, this is not the case for everyone.

 

No, the assertion is that believing in something as outrageous as god with absolutely no supporting evidence is broken...

 

 

Axioms inherently are assumed to be true, even in mathematics.

 

But they can be shown to be true my mathematics... using your logic i can assume as an axiom that any god is real or that invisible dragons are real and that they really run the world by pulling on our puppet strings...

 

 

Yes I am aware of all those horrors and the Crusades, but I don't see Jesus actually advocating people doing those things, but perhaps as lessons.

 

I never mentioned the crusades, the crusades are a drop in the bucket and not even in the bible but the bible was used to justify them...

 

 

 

I stated I have already read much of the bible,

 

I've read it all at least four or five times.

 

and on top of all that, many mono-theists aren't completely by the book, something you'd know if you actually tried to understand this issue.

 

So now you assume I have never tried to understand this issue?

 

Most mono-theists, although take advice from the high-up people like priests and bishops, like to see god as being more logical, like Newton and possibly Einstein.

 

Show some evidence of this please...

 

In fact, it wasn't every mono-theistic religion that hated science, it was only Christianity.

 

Again, do you have any evidence of this?

 

While Western Europe was in turmoil, the Muslim peoples were a prosperous group with colleges of philosophy and culminations of students for mathematics and the arts. It was actually during that time period that many religious Muslin or at least religious scholars boosted many things in science such as astronomy, anatomy and mathematical equations.

 

yes and their religion dragged then into the black hole of fundamentalism which they have yet to recover from. it wasn't religion that allowed the science and scholars of the Middle east to prosper.

 

 

 

 

 

Are you serious? Ok, the most basic evidence there is:

99.99% of human DNA is exactly the same and in the exact same order. And, the .01% is already being used up largely by physical differences, such as skin, hair and eye color, slight variations in muscle density, height, weight, metabolism, the list goes on.

Furthermore it has been believed in psychology even since before modern times that the environments of people shapes them, and if you don't believe me, go ask a psychologist. This factor is not excluded from atheists. Someone who grows up in an non-religious environment has a higher chance of being non-religious, someone who grows up in a religious environment has a higher chance of being religious. To say atheists don't have this is to say being an atheist automatically makes you immune to the effects of your environment. Not only that, but religion is often connected to different experiences, the most prominent one being death. All atheists and religious people with the exception of maybe some psychopaths are effected by the deaths of their loved ones. But, religion builds off of this, and to someone who is agnostic, religion then becomes more important in their life because it is better to think about someone you care about being alive in some way. Atheists also have this and most probably do think about the possibility of a dead loved one being alive. To say atheists to not have the aspect of connecting ideas to important events in their life is unwise. And then ironically, there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that beveling in a religion impairs brain function in any way. This should be especially considered when looking at the existence of religious scientists. The only thing research has found is that when people pray very intensely, their brain changes in such a way that certain parts seem to interact less with each other, sort of like meditating.

 

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with what i said, try again...

 

Now you know why i thought this was an appropriate response to your non response...

 

Edited May 7, 2012 by Moontanman

[Villain]

I have made this point more accessible by stating that if faith can be used to accept as true the proposition that god(s) exist, then it can equally be used to accept as true the proposition for just about anything...

 

even the axioms of science?

[iNow]

Are you trying to suggest that the conditional acceptance we offer for scientific principles is equivalent to accepting as true the proposition that god(s) exists based on zero evidence?

[Villain]

Are you trying to suggest that the conditional acceptance we offer for scientific principles is equivalent to accepting as true the proposition that god(s) exists based on zero evidence?

 

No I'm suggesting that it is the equivalent of unicorns.

[John Cuthber]

No I'm suggesting that it is the equivalent of unicorns.

So, you thing unicorns make your computer work then?

[questionposter]

Whether you like it or not all you are doing is making unsupported assertions about things you have little knowledge of and nothing but assumptions of what you think religion is and says...

 

You haven't really provided any logical evidence for this. Go ask a psychiatrist, I learned the environment thing from asking one myself. All people like you are doing is making matters worse between religious people and non-religious people. There is no possible way mono-theism could have survived this long if it was that illogical and it actually didn't do one single thing for people, unless you believe there is some invisible microchip in people's brains that plant that thought. I don't know why you don't have the capability to understand that religion can bring people together as much as it can tare them apart.

This evidence thing works both ways. Let's see some evidence that just because god would "be able to do anything" it it means it "has" to do everything. If it can do anything, then logically it has the capability to not prove it.

Edited May 7, 2012 by questionposter

[John Cuthber]

You haven't really provided any logical evidence for this. Go ask a psychiatrist, I learned the environment thing from asking one myself. All people like you are doing is making matters worse between religious people and non-religious people. There is no possible way mono-theism could have survived that long if it was that illogical and it actually didn't do one single thing for people, unless you believe there is some invisible microchip in people's brains that plant that thought. I don't know why you don't have the capability to understand that religion can bring people together as much as it can tare them apart.

This evidence thing works both ways. Let's see some evidence that just because god would "be able to do anything" it it means it "has" to do everything.

Actually I did. I pointed out that your position that "God can do anything" is logically inconsistent and, therefore, a bad axiom.

I realise it's nothing new- I didn't come up with the idea- it's a lot older than me, but I did bring it to your attention.

You ignored it - your response had nothing to do with the issue.

 

Also, once again, you are ignoring the evidence by saying "There is no possible way mono-theism could have survived that long if it was that illogical "

It did, but that's not the big problem.

You compound this by saying " it actually didn't do one single thing for people,"

which is a straw man and, as such, a logical fallacy.

Such arguments are frowned upon.

[questionposter]

Noah's Ark can be shown to be false simply by the existence of echinoderms, if god can do anything why did he need and ark to begin with?

 

That merely proves that with our current understanding that WE couldn't do it, but logically if something can do anything, it could make room on Noah's ark.

 

 

 

Again, logic has nothing to do with religion and the Christianity you see today is afar cry from the religion is was before the enlightenment, it has been gelded and no longer kills and tortures people who disagree with the churches authority, but not because the church suddenly decided it was wrong. The church was forced to relinquish it's absolute control over the people.

And those people are called "extremists", which obviously not every religious person is. And besides, what would you do if there was some high authority that said some ridiculous thing that obviously went against your view of god as a being that was compassionate but that could also kill you for speaking out against them in any way?

 

 

 

No, now you know why disproving god is impossible without have god like powers as well.

That was never in question by me until you brought it up.

 

 

 

 

No, the assertion is that believing in something as outrageous as god with absolutely no supporting evidence is broken...

It doesn't how matter how ridiculous it is from your point of reference or how you like to automatically justify anything that has to do with religion along the lines of being improbable, it is unprovable one way or another which leaves room for belief.

 

 

 

 

But they can be shown to be true my mathematics... using your logic i can assume as an axiom that any god is real or that invisible dragons are real and that they really run the world by pulling on our puppet strings...

http://www.sciencefo...ou-proof-proof/

 

 

 

 

I never mentioned the crusades, the crusades are a drop in the bucket and not even in the bible but the bible was used to justify them...

It's strange that someone who doesn't believe in the bible would be acting as if all the horrible bible stories were real.

 

 

 

So now you assume I have never tried to understand this issue?

Ok, maybe you put a couple calories of brain energy into it, but this issue has had a lot more thought put into it than that.

 

 

 

Show some evidence of this please...

How about you get off your damn computer and actually talk to some different people? Even reverends I've talked to like to think of god as being logical, and even Newton did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

It's no wonder why religious people hate atheists when many atheists assume religious people are illogical children in some sense. Once again, there is no scientific research to back this notion that religions people are broken, the debate might as well be whether or not god exists.

 

 

Again, do you have any evidence of this?

Holy crap did you even go to high school or even take philosophy in college? Or just Sunday school?

http://www.islamicit.../ihame/ref4.htm

They even teach that in social studies classes according to my nephew and even I remember learning about those things when reviewing world time-lines and the history of mathematics.

 

 

 

yes and their religion dragged then into the black hole of fundamentalism which they have yet to recover from. it wasn't religion that allowed the science and scholars of the Middle east to prosper.

Actually, it WAS religion that allowed them to prosper because they followed their religion more than they researched and their religion advocated forming a decent community and did not say science was the work of the devil (that's ONLY Christianity and only during a few time periods), something which didn't really happen before someone said "you go to hell for stealing and killing your neighbors". We are descended from chimp-like creatures, just look at how chimps act in nature.

 

Actually I did. I pointed out that your position that "God can do anything" is logically inconsistent and, therefore, a bad axiom.

I realise it's nothing new- I didn't come up with the idea- it's a lot older than me, but I did bring it to your attention.

You ignored it - your response had nothing to do with the issue.

I didn't ignore it, it just didn't make sense. If god would in fact be able to do anything, it would have the ability to not show everyone that it can do everything.

 

Also, once again, you are ignoring the evidence by saying "There is no possible way mono-theism could have survived that long if it was that illogical "

It did, but that's not the big problem.

You compound this by saying " it actually didn't do one single thing for people,"

which is a straw man and, as such, a logical fallacy.

Such arguments are frowned upon.

Well I sure haven't seen him say anything good about religions. Atheists are no better, if they were born in the ancient era before we had all this science and variety of philosophical views and someone came up with logical conclusions as to how there could be a being that made everything, most would have just believed in god as well. Furthermore, there's people who believe/believed in a more compassionate god, like oh I don't know Martin Luther King (Jr.). Then there's people who believe in a logical god like Isaac Newton. You can't condemn a person for believing in a religion based on it's most ancient of scriptures and all it's little details, even John Stewart said that, things change, views change, and there's around 7 billion people in the world.

 

By the way, I thought you would have known this already, but http://www.telegraph...c-the-same.html

Edited May 7, 2012 by questionposter

[DrDNA]

doG,

and the Bible is pretty boring reading for a non-believer. I tried to read it, after I read the Koran twice, following Sept.11th, when I was trying to understand how such evil had come from a "religion of peace", but it was too boring, I couldn't read it through.

 

The first half of the Koran is at least interesting. I think Mohammed dictated that part. He was a good writer. And a persuasive thinker. The second half is mostly repitition and strikes me as a different style. I think the scribes wrote most of that themselves. Or Mohammed was suffering from writer's block.

 

Regarding the Quran,, perhaps this is what you may have been looking for (I know that I was after 9/11)?

It definitely does state that Christians and Jews are to be greeted with peace.

 

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62, 5:69).

 

"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (5:82).

 

"O you who believe! Be helpers of God -- as Jesus the son of Mary said to the Disciples, 'Who will be my helpers in (the work of) God?' Said the disciples, 'We are God's helpers!' (61:14).

 

 

Also, regarding how Christians and Jews should treat Muslims and others...

 

Leviticus 19:33-34: “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”

 

Exodus 22:21: “You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”

 

Deut 24:14 Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns. 15 Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it. Otherwise they may cry to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin.

17 Do not deprive the foreigner or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. 18 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this.

19 When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow. 21 When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this.

 

Luke 6:27-31. Jesus says:

 

“But I say to you who here, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.”

 

It is so sad how this has been twisted and misinterpreted for selfish gain and hatred, and anger's sake.

 

These words are NOT BROKEN

Edited May 7, 2012 by DrDNA

[Moontanman]

That merely proves that with our current understanding that WE couldn't do it, but logically if something can do anything, it could make room on Noah's ark.

 

No, the reality of the situation is that Noah's Ark is easily shown to be a fairy tale with no basis in reality.

 

And those people are called "extremists", which obviously not every religious person is. And besides, what would you do if there was some high authority that said some ridiculous thing that obviously went against your view of god as a being that was compassionate but that could also kill you for speaking out against them in any way?

 

No, in the past those people were mainstream, they were not fringe groups, they were the church.

 

That was never in question by me until you brought it up.

 

you were the one that claimed that god was most likely real because he could not be disproved.

 

It doesn't how matter how ridiculous it is from your point of reference or how you like to automatically justify anything that has to do with religion along the lines of being improbable, it is unprovable one way or another which leaves room for belief.

 

Being ridiculous has nothing to do with it, there is no evidence that supports the reality of a god or gods. Belief does not support reality, you can believe in the hollow earth or a geocentric solar system but belief does not make anything true.

 

http://www.sciencefo...ou-proof-proof/

 

None the less, if you start out with a flawed axiom then your conclusions are flawed as well.

 

It's strange that someone who doesn't believe in the bible would be acting as if all the horrible bible stories were real.

 

I don't believe they are real but if they are real do then god is a ravening psychopathic monster.

 

Ok, maybe you put a couple calories of brain energy into it, but this issue has had a lot more thought put into it than that.

 

Now you are being insulting, i think it's called a personal attack, that is against the rules here, please read them again.

 

 

How about you get off your damn computer and actually talk to some different people? Even reverends I've talked to like to think of god as being logical, and even Newton did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

It's no wonder why religious people hate atheists when many atheists assume religious people are illogical children in some sense. Once again, there is no scientific research to back this notion that religions people are broken, the debate might as well be whether or not god exists.

 

yet another personal attack

 

Holy crap did you even go to high school or even take philosophy in college? Or just Sunday school?

http://www.islamicit.../ihame/ref4.htm

They even teach that in social studies classes according to my nephew and even I remember learning about those things when reviewing world time-lines and the history of mathematics.

 

please stop being insulting

 

Actually, it WAS religion that allowed them to prosper because they followed their religion more than they researched and their religion advocated forming a decent community and did not say science was the work of the devil (that's ONLY Christianity and only during a few time periods), something which didn't really happen before someone said "you go to hell for stealing and killing your neighbors". We are descended from chimp-like creatures, just look at how chimps act in nature.

 

please show some evidence of this other than your assertions

 

I didn't ignore it, it just didn't make sense. If god would in fact be able to do anything, it would have the ability to not show everyone that it can do everything.

 

Then god is dishonest...

 

 

Well I sure haven't seen him say anything good about religions. Atheists are no better, if they were born in the ancient era before we had all this science and variety of philosophical views and someone came up with logical conclusions as to how there could be a being that made everything, most would have just believed in god as well. Furthermore, there's people who believe/believed in a more compassionate god, like oh I don't know Martin Luther King. Then there's people who believe in a logical god like Isaac Newton. You can't condemn a person for believing in a religion based on it's most ancient of scriptures and all it's little details, even John Stewart said that, things change, views change, and there's around 7 billion people in the world.

 

What people believe about god is not evidence of gods existence

 

By the way, I thought you would have known this already, but http://www.telegraph...c-the-same.html

 

Again, this is meaningless in this conversation.

[questionposter]

Regarding the Quran,, perhaps this is what you may have been looking for (I know that I was after 9/11)?

It definitely does state that Christians and Jews are to be greeted with peace.

 

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62, 5:69).

 

"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (5:82).

 

"O you who believe! Be helpers of God -- as Jesus the son of Mary said to the Disciples, 'Who will be my helpers in (the work of) God?' Said the disciples, 'We are God's helpers!' (61:14).

 

 

Also, regarding how Christians and Jews should treat Muslims and others...

 

Leviticus 19:33-34: "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God."

 

Exodus 22:21: "You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt."

 

Deut 24:14 Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns. 15 Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it. Otherwise they may cry to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin.

17 Do not deprive the foreigner or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. 18 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this.

19 When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow. 21 When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this.

 

Luke 6:27-31. Jesus says:

 

"But I say to you who here, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them."

 

It is so sad how this has been twisted and misinterpreted for selfish gain and hatred, and anger's sake.

 

These words are NOT BROKEN

 

I suppose it is nice to see someone besides me (who doesn't even believe in god) to defend religious attributions, but this is still no place for blatant preaching.

Your religious right? You believe god exists, but do you obviously do not advocate violence. Do you study science as well? Do you think science is the language of the devil? Do you believe you cannot sit on furniture which women have menstruated on? Do you believe people who have cheated on other people deserve to be stoned to death?

Edited May 7, 2012 by questionposter

[iNow]

I have laid out why I think faith is perhaps one of the single worst reasons to accept a proposition as true.

 

I have elaborated that an affirmative belief that god(s) exists is an extraordinary one, and that faith alone does not adequately scale with the claim.

 

I have shared how believers present a double standard and appear as hypocrites since they ask their faith to be good enough to accept their god(s), but like me they reject the faith of others who believe in different gods.

 

I have shared how this double standard becomes even more readily visible outside the concept of deities, as believers themselves reject faith as a good enough reason to accept something as true in other aspects of reality, and they require evidence of claims and tend to value both logic and reason for just about everything else... it seems... so long as the subject of those thoughts are unrelated to religion or god(s).

 

I have explained that a person who uses faith to make a decision on something as important as the concept of god(s) is more likely to make decisions using faith in other areas of life, and so the use of faith on the concept of god is more likely to diminish their logic and rationality and reason on other subjects more tangible.

 

I have shared how many of those decisions effect all of us in this society, and that is part of the reason we should seek to minimize that type of thinking and more highly value evidence, reason, and consistency.

 

I have made this point more accessible by stating that if faith can be used to accept as true the proposition that god(s) exist, then it can equally be used to accept as true the proposition for just about anything... including the easter bunny, unicorns, leprechauns, or even more real life issues like humans can't impact climate, evolution can't be true, children should have their genitals mutilated, medicine is not to be used, or people who don't believe (or who believe something different) are to be murdered.

 

Specific to my comment, "I have made this point more accessible by stating that if faith can be used to accept as true the proposition that god(s) exist, then it can equally be used to accept as true the proposition for just about anything..." you asked:

 

even the axioms of science?

Are you trying to suggest that the conditional acceptance we offer for scientific principles is equivalent to accepting as true the proposition that god(s) exists based on zero evidence?

 

And you replied:

No I'm suggesting that it is the equivalent of unicorns.

 

I don't understand your point. Can you please elaborate or elucidate or clarify somehow, please?

[DrDNA]

Couldn't you just shoot the guy in the leg or call the police and merely threaten him?

 

You ever 'TRY' to shoot a target in the leg (relatively narrow, below the horizontal plane of the shooter's arm/pistol and for a real person often rapidly shifting position)?

As opposed to the preferred, much more stable, large center of mass (ie, the chest).

Besides, people with holes in their leg can still kill you.

 

That always makes for interesting cinema and TV.

No cop academy, no paramilitary, military or self defense class would EVER teach that.

 

After demanding the offender to drop his weapon fails, you aim for center of mass and shoot to kill. That is assuming that you can't use your best defensive weapon, your feet.

 

Maybe that's broken too, if so, broken is the way it is.

 

Just to notice, that when looked at, with my particular skew, scientists are actually MORE likely to "please" God by just listening to his words, than religous people are likely to please him by putting 2000 year old words in his mouth.

Why can't we, don't we, do both?

 

There is a risk that you're bordering on stereotyping.

I'm not accusing, nor assuming you have crossed that line, but I do see the risk; perhaps because of my sensitivity to being stereotype myself....

Being both scientist and Christian, I get it from both side at least weekly depending on the present company.

 

Hmmmm. Editted your post huh? You said that you disagreed that 'all' people were broken and no one made that claim.

Chill. No deceit was intended in the edit.

Edited May 7, 2012 by DrDNA

[questionposter]

No, the reality of the situation is that Noah's Ark is easily shown to be a fairy tale with no basis in reality.

Well the black sea formed nearly 12,000 years ago, and it is a story that could be have been passed down orally, other than that, you still can't say it couldn't logically happen if god can do anything. It is only improbable with our current knowledge or unknown how it could be achieved with our current knowledge, nothing more.

 

 

 

No, in the past those people were mainstream, they were not fringe groups, they were the church.

Hundreds of years ago they were mainstream perhaps, but more than that things like those were issued from authority, and people would often only carry them out as orders, and since people back then couldn't read, they could only take the higher authority as word since only higher authority had the ability to read the bible.

 

 

 

you were the one that claimed that god was most likely real because he could not be disproved.

I'm pretty sure I have never said in my ENTIRE life that god is "most likely" real, I merely stated there is a possibility of it being real since it cannot be proven or disprove or that relative to other people it is more likely to them.

 

 

 

Being ridiculous has nothing to do with it, there is no evidence that supports the reality of a god or gods. Belief does not support reality, you can believe in the hollow earth or a geocentric solar system but belief does not make anything true.

Sure there's evidence to support it: How did everything get here? Why is physics the way it is? We are here, so we must have been created by something, and logically it could have been created by a being that can do anything.

 

 

 

None the less, if you start out with a flawed axiom then your conclusions are flawed as well.

There is no such thing as a "flawed" axiom, an axiom is simply any statement which you use build logical conclusions off of. There can therefore only be illogical conclusions based off of axioms. I can say "1+1=1", but it does equal one with a modulation of 1. Or I could say "this sentence is false", it's just a statement, but it would be illogical to say "this statement is false, therefore it is true".

 

 

 

I don't believe they are real but if they are real do then god is a ravening psychopathic monster.

Maybe the depictions of god are inaccurate. I'm surprised especially at this remark considering religion has been around for as long as humans have existed and those are very strict scriptures, and there's over 7 billion people in the world which means there's 7 billion different views on the subject.

 

 

 

Now you are being insulting, i think it's called a personal attack, that is against the rules here, please read them again.

Actually it isn't a personal attack because I am not insulting your intelligence, I am making a conjecture about your effort to understand different views in this issue.

 

 

 

 

yet another personal attack

If you actually talked to religious people you'd know many don't take every thing in the bible as being true, but rather as lessons as well, and like to think of god as being logical in many ways.

 

 

 

please stop being insulting

I can see how that could be considered a personal attack and I apologize for the insult, but not for the evidence.

 

 

 

please show some evidence of this other than your assertions

It's part of Muslim religion, a dominant religion in the middle-east for hundreds of years, to pray 5-times a day in the direction of Mecca on a clean mat, and it's even mandatory in that religion to go visit Mecca at some point in your life. Other than the lifestyles, I don't know what other evidence to provide.

 

 

 

Then god is dishonest...

When did god specifically state he can't do everything?

 

 

 

 

What people believe about god is not evidence of gods existence

It doesn't mean it can't be logical, it simply means there is a chance of it being wrong. I can still form a logical sequence of steps and have it be either right or wrong. Just like the the Bhor model of an atom. There's loads of mathematics to support it, but it turned out to be wrong, and then look at Newton's light. There's lots of mathematics to support at the time that it was wrong, but it turned out to be right.

 

 

 

Again, this is meaningless in this conversation.

 

You somehow had the audacity to ask for evidence that atheists and religious people are similar without considering both sides consist of no more than humans, and humans are humans.

 

Seeing as how over 75% of the world is religious, I would say that it is more probable that religious people are not actually "broken".

Edited May 7, 2012 by questionposter

[DrDNA]

No, the reality of the situation is that Noah's Ark is easily shown to be a fairy tale with no basis in reality.

 

This is an example the need to be careful how you interpret what you read, think, hear, say, etc.

 

1. a giant flood is lore in many cultlures

2. Was the whole earth flooded or some area flooded?

a.

Earth as in planet Earth = kadur ha'arets (כדור הארץ)

earth as in soil = adamah (אדמה). For example the soil/earth from which Adam was made.

earth as in land or territory = erets (ארץ)

hebrew words for earth

 

b. For example:

-God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's daughters said "there's not a man in the earth #776 Strong's Concordance (erets) to come in unto us" (Genesis 19:31) Not every man in the world was killed ... only those in the area of the destruction.

 

-Exodus 9:33 "the rain was not poured upon the earth" #776 Strong's Concordance (erets)... Of course we understand it is just speaking about a certain area in Egypt.

 

-Genesis 7, "Noah's flood": the flood covered "the earth", the Hebrew word used in the original writing by Moses was #776 Strong's Concordance "erets", meaning "the land" (see above). The flood cover a particular region, not the whole earth.

 

This is a problem a BROKEN translation and our BROKEN interpretation of the translation. Not with the story itself.

[questionposter]

This is an example the need to be careful how you interpret what you read, think, hear, say, etc.

 

1. a giant flood is lore in many cultlures

2. Was the whole earth flooded or some area flooded?

a.

Earth as in planet Earth = kadur ha'arets (כדור הארץ)

earth as in soil = adamah (אדמה). For example the soil/earth from which Adam was made.

earth as in land or territory = erets (ארץ)

hebrew words for earth

 

b. For example:

-God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's daughters said "there's not a man in the earth #776 Strong's Concordance (erets) to come in unto us" (Genesis 19:31) Not every man in the world was killed ... only those in the area of the destruction.

 

-Exodus 9:33 "the rain was not poured upon the earth" #776 Strong's Concordance (erets)... Of course we understand it is just speaking about a certain area in Egypt.

 

-Genesis 7, "Noah's flood": the flood covered "the earth", the Hebrew word used in the original writing by Moses was #776 Strong's Concordance "erets", meaning "the land" (see above). The flood cover a particular region, not the whole earth.

 

This is a problem a BROKEN translation and our BROKEN interpretation of the translation. Not with the story itself.

 

That's more like it, but even with those translations, it's possible someone meant "land as far as they know" which from them could have meant the world, but nonetheless, the black sea formed in recent geological history which could have accounted for the stories.

http://fajardo-acost...timeline-00.htm

This says it was formed 5,000 years ago, but I've seen things that said 12,000 years ago.

 

More than anything, I think the stories in the bible were meant to be lessons, but some people abused the interpretations for their own benefit which is where problems occurred.

Edited May 7, 2012 by questionposter

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

1. There have been a few exchanges recently that have become too heated and debate has descended into mere gainsaying. Reasoned debate is needed.
2. Members must ensure that they keep any criticisms and remarks focused on the arguments put forward and not on the individual who posted them.
3. Please keep on topic and try not to stray from the general OP; off-topic branches make the thread unwieldy and difficult to follow.

[Moontanman]

That's more like it, but even with those translations, it's possible someone meant "land as far as they know" which from them could have meant the world, but nonetheless, the black sea formed in recent geological history which could have accounted for the stories.

http://fajardo-acost...timeline-00.htm

This says it was formed 5,000 years ago, but I've seen things that said 12,000 years ago.

 

More than anything, I think the stories in the bible were meant to be lessons, but some people abused the interpretations for their own benefit which is where problems occurred.

 

 

Your slant on this is in the minority but more importantly it does nothing to support the reality of god or the idea that people who believe in god are broken or not. You or anyone else can interpret the idea of god or gods all you want, you can twist it to mean anything and people often have but it still ignores the fact that you are believing something extraordinary with no evidence what so ever...

 

This is an example the need to be careful how you interpret what you read, think, hear, say, etc.

 

1. a giant flood is lore in many cultlures

2. Was the whole earth flooded or some area flooded?

a.

Earth as in planet Earth = kadur ha'arets (כדור הארץ)

earth as in soil = adamah (אדמה). For example the soil/earth from which Adam was made.

earth as in land or territory = erets (ארץ)

hebrew words for earth

 

b. For example:

-God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's daughters said "there's not a man in the earth #776 Strong's Concordance (erets) to come in unto us" (Genesis 19:31) Not every man in the world was killed ... only those in the area of the destruction.

 

-Exodus 9:33 "the rain was not poured upon the earth" #776 Strong's Concordance (erets)... Of course we understand it is just speaking about a certain area in Egypt.

 

-Genesis 7, "Noah's flood": the flood covered "the earth", the Hebrew word used in the original writing by Moses was #776 Strong's Concordance "erets", meaning "the land" (see above). The flood cover a particular region, not the whole earth.

 

This is a problem a BROKEN translation and our BROKEN interpretation of the translation. Not with the story itself.

 

 

That is your assertion, you have shown nothing to support that assertion other than your assertion. in fact the idea that the flood was indeed limited and described in other earlier cultures tends to indicate that god is simply an idea, not a reality and that god is nothing more than a made up concept no different that Thor or Zeus or any other god that has been placed on the dust bin of outdated ideas.

[tar]

 

But I did point out that there is at least one thing He is not able to do, even if He wishes to.

Either He is unable to set himself a task He can't perform, or He can't perform that task.

 

 

John Cuthber,

 

What if God has already performed all possible tasks? In that case, he would not be able to set himself a task he can't perform, but it does not mean he has not already accomplished it. It would mean he already did it.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

(I knew what I meant when I wrote the above, but it has so many nots in it, you can take it wrong. Take it the way it makes sense to invalidate the paradox as a paradox. That is the way I meant it.)

Edited May 8, 2012 by tar