The God Thread

[Playoff Beered]

20 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Of course this makes good sense if the discussion was about the value of religion. But I don’t see how this proves to a believer that God doesn’t exist. It shows religious organizations of man are bad. 

 

I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone.

[Alflives]

22 minutes ago, StrayDog said:

My opinion is based on the theory that the Bible is the word of God. I can only go with what believers claim: that the Bible is God's words given to prophets. I personally don't believe that. My own view of the Bible is that it is a semi-historical text interwoven with parables about how to be a decent human being. 

You're right that the only way to believe in God (any god, really) is about faith, since their existence can neither be proved or disproved. I do not have that faith.

I think those texts are relevant, however you feel about God's existence. Believers point to the text as proof, non-believers point to holes and inconsistencies as disproof.

For the most part I agree. But if a person believes there is no God (my view too) then the texts have no relevance. It’s up to the believers to provide objective evidence rather than referencing a text to which belief in as God’s word is based on faith. 

[Alflives]

24 minutes ago, Playoff Beered said:

 

I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone.

 

[RupertKBD]

8 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

I have sinned Rupert.  I don't even know what I'm posting anymore.  I think this thread is testing my faith.  I better leave before I become an atheist...

 

I think you're taking the whole getting ganged up on thing too seriously Petey....a lot of people disagree with your position. It's not personal, even though it might feel like it. (and I understand that faith is a deeply personal thing)

 

My position has always been that God's existence has not been proven and that the amount of injustice and suffering that goes on in the world suggests to me that He doesn't exist.....at least not in the form that I was told by the Catholic church.....but that's just my opinion.

 

If it makes it any easier, I respect your sticking to your guns, as it were. We can disagree on whether God exists....and what form (if any) that existence takes...that's what these threads are for.

 

 

[Optimist Prime]

4 hours ago, Alflives said:

Maybe it’s simply a question about faith for one to believe in God? Those who have faith believe. Those who don’t have faith need objective proof to believe. So two sides, as you say. 
I wonder how many adults switch groups? Those who have faith lose it and those without faith gain it? 

I think this has been asked and answered in the literary world, Chris Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, et cetera. 

If all of these north american true believers happened to be born in India, they would have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that an Elephant God rode a mouse in a race around the universe and won! Instead, by shear luck of the draw, or random number generator they were born in North America to a a Christian family and so believe that God had to force a woman to have his baby so that he could kill that child to forgive humanity for the sins that he, the creator, created himself, and then he raises that dead child from the grave, like in GITMO where they synthesize the drowning death of the torture victims over and over and over again... it is absurd, but you get the point. 

If no child was indoctrinated into a cult from birth, and every adult human at 18 had to choose to be religious or not and then what religion: by and large the planet would be athiest. 

[RupertKBD]

2 hours ago, Playoff Beered said:

 

 

Always liked Emerson....

 

Lake and Palmer were pretty good too.....

[RupertKBD]

1 hour ago, StrayDog said:

My opinion is based on the theory that the Bible is the word of God. I can only go with what believers claim: that the Bible is God's words given to prophets. I personally don't believe that. My own view of the Bible is that it is a semi-historical text interwoven with parables about how to be a decent human being. 

You're right that the only way to believe in God (any god, really) is about faith, since their existence can neither be proved or disproved. I do not have that faith.

I think those texts are relevant, however you feel about God's existence. Believers point to the text as proof, non-believers point to holes and inconsistencies as disproof.

 

Well said....this is pretty much how I feel....

 

.....although I'd add that I think a few very dubious tales were thrown in to make it a bit more of a page turner....

[Optimist Prime]

I do agree with you StrayDog, i have read three different bibles, 12 of the texts that were voted out of the bible (there were many more that didn't make the final cut in the 1200's by the way, at I believe the Council of Nicea?) The Koran, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita and other hindu texts even some cobbled togethter Zoroastrian tenets. Most of these are on my bookshelf still, and several books written by the man who Buddhists uphold as the reincarnation of the Buddha. The art of happiness being my favourite from him. They are important texts to humanity, there is no doubt, for they shaped the world through their various believers and those who manipulate those believers vis a vis the historical overwhelming violence that the believers set upon the "other" in their worlds. 

I have studied mythology and theology and came to find they are the same practice, the same field. The only difference between the two are the former has no current following of any mass large enough to trouble the rest of us, and the later still uses violence to propagate. 

[StrayDog]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

For the most part I agree. But if a person believes there is no God (my view too) then the texts have no relevance. It’s up to the believers to provide objective evidence rather than referencing a text to which belief in as God’s word is based on faith. 

The texts have relevance to me because it at least gives me a point of reference to try and see a believer's point of view. I don't agree with the belief, but it helps me understand it. But you're right; I can't accept the existence of the Bible as proof that God exists.

As far as objective evidence - I don't think there is enough to prove or disprove a divine being of some form. I just personally don't believe that that particular form is God as shown in the Bible.

[Optimist Prime]

Just now, Optimist Prime said:

and the later still uses violence to propagate. 

I will save some christians some time and reply myself "No they don't they closed that last residential school in 1996, so the violence that rose religion to the current heights over a 2000 year arc of murder, torture and genocide doesn't happen anymore, case closed"

[StrayDog]

10 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Well said....this is pretty much how I feel....

 

.....although I'd add that I think a few very dubious tales were thrown in to make it a bit more of a page turner....

Well yeah. You need to spice up the stories, otherwise it's a few hundred pages of so-and-so begat so-and-so who begat third so-and-so. Every story needs a good murder to keep it going

[RupertKBD]

Okay, I think this thread has gotten too heavy and some feelings have been hurt.....time for a religious (and maybe slightly sacrilegious?) joke:

 

Three men, an Englishman, a Scotsman and a Newfoundlander are meeting with the Irish Priest before their upcoming weddings....(this joke sounds better if you read the parts with their respective accents. If you have a tin ear, this won't be as funny for you )

 

Priest: "One thing you have to remember boys.....after the wedding you must be waitin' 2 weeks before consummatin' the union. Otherwise, they'll be no place in Heaven for ye".

Boys: "Yes father".

 

A month passes and the three men, (now married) are back in the Vicar's office. He's sees them one at a time. First up is the Englishman....

 

Priest: "Well my son, tell me, have you acceded to God's wishes and refrained from intercourse for the required two weeks?"

Englishman: "It was one of the hardest things I've ever done, Father (no pun intended) but yes, we waited the two weeks".

Priest: "Excellent! I'm sure there will now be a place in Heaven for ye!"

 

Next man into the office is the Scotsman....

 

Priest: "Well my son, tell me, have you acceded to God's wishes and refrained from intercourse for the required two weeks?"

Scotsman: "I'm ashamed to say it Father, but no. We tried, we really tried, but after 10 days we couldn't stand the wait any longer and we did the deed. We're very sorry, Father".

Priest: "Well, my son, God will be disappointed, but he understands that his children can sometimes be weak. I think if you truly regret going against God's will and if you say 5 Hail Mary's and 3 Lord's Prayers, there will still be a place in Heaven for Ye".

 

Last man into the office is the Newfoundlander....

 

Priest: "Well my son, tell me, have you acceded to God's wishes and refrained from intercourse for the required two weeks?"

Newfoundlander: "Well...uh...about that Father.....we didn't quite make it two weeks.....in fact it was more like two hours".....

 

The Priest is shocked, "Two hours? God asks for two weeks and all you could give him was two hours?"

 

"I'm really sorry father" replies the Newfoundlander. "I saw her bend over the freezer and couldn't help myself. The lust overtook me".

 

Priest: "This is really quite disappointing my son.....and quite unacceptable. I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think there will be a place in Heaven for ye now".

 

Newfoundlander: "I understand Father....I don't think they'll be havin' us back in the 7-11 anytime soon, either".....

 

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by RupertKBD

[Optimist Prime]

My own joke, i can't blame anyone else for how lame it is, but here goes:

 

A Drunk, a Bartender and a bar flousy all walk into a church together.

The priest says "is this some kind of joke?".

 

 

In all seriousness though, you can see why I tried to stay away from this channel in the CDC version. I have a hard time brooking any lunacy or willing ridiculousness and I have no wish to be at peace with christians, or any religious folks over the matter as I have no respect for the beliefs whatsoever nor do I believe those beliefs deserve any respect whatsoever. The closest I can honestly come to a congenial 'agreement' on the subject is that I agree to a delusional cultists right to be so. 

 

I don't foresee myself spending much time in this thread, so there is that to look forward to if you feel offended that I won't couch my language to preserve the feelings of those who will clutch their pearls and decry my rude abhorrent behaviour. I guess that is probably for the best. 

 

I wish you all in the thread a highly sarcastic Adieu. 

[Sharpshooter]

2 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

My own joke, i can't blame anyone else for how lame it is, but here goes:

 

A Drunk, a Bartender and a bar flousy all walk into a church together.

The priest says "is this some kind of joke?".

 

May god, any god, have mercy on your soul, your past lives, your reincarnation or your karma, for that god-awful joke. 
 

Go In Peace/Peace Be Upon You. 
 

 

[112]

I'm still unsure of where the burden of proof really lies when talking about creation/the beginnings of the universe. It seems that a lot of people in this thread think claims of it being a deity that started the Big Bang need to be brought with evidence to have credence, but there's similarly no evidence that the universe just spawned out of nowhere. This is to say: we know the what but not the why/how. Obviously the universe exploded/expanded from a singularity, but to claim that this just happened is making a claim likewise the claim that it was a deity.

 

I see a lot of people referring to texts such as the Bible, Qu'ran and Gita and the obvious insanity of the contents as reasons to disbelieve in god(s), but meanwhile the origins of everything are not well-enough understood by science for divinity to be disproved. It's equally unfalsifiable to say that the universe simply began as it is to say that the universe has theological origins. Both sides are making a claim to substitute for knowledge which no community on earth has.

 

I really do think this whole "burden of proof" thing is misunderstood here; this is a philosophical conversation and not necessarily a scientific one. We do not have scientific knowledge that there is no creator and the universe emerged from a point of non-sentience. We do have a great amount of knowledge disproving claims made within the Bible and other religious texts, but there is nothing to disprove a vague creator who was present at the initiation of time.

[Sharpshooter]

7 minutes ago, 112 said:

I'm still unsure of where the burden of proof really lies when talking about creation/the beginnings of the universe. It seems that a lot of people in this thread think claims of it being a deity that started the Big Bang need to be brought with evidence to have credence, but there's similarly no evidence that the universe just spawned out of nowhere. This is to say: we know the what but not the why/how. Obviously the universe exploded/expanded from a singularity, but to claim that this just happened is making a claim likewise the claim that it was a deity.

 

I see a lot of people referring to texts such as the Bible, Qu'ran and Gita and the obvious insanity of the contents as reasons to disbelieve in god(s), but meanwhile the origins of everything are not well-enough understood by science for divinity to be disproved. It's equally unfalsifiable to say that the universe simply began as it is to say that the universe has theological origins. Both sides are making a claim to substitute for knowledge which no community on earth has.

 

I really do think this whole "burden of proof" thing is misunderstood here; this is a philosophical conversation and not necessarily a scientific one. We do not have scientific knowledge that there is no creator and the universe emerged from a point of non-sentience. We do have a great amount of knowledge disproving claims made within the Bible and other religious texts, but there is nothing to disprove a vague creator who was present at the initiation of time.

It lays at the feet of the one making the claim. 
 

The one claiming something has to provide some evidence to back it up. 
 

Otherwise the claim is faulty. 
 

I claim that there are, for example, there are flying manatees. I believe that to my core. Someone says I haven’t seen any flying manatees, and then the first person replies with, well you have to have faith. It was written down a long time ago, and most people believe in some kind of flying manatee. 

 

Prove they don’t have exist. 

[112]

Just now, Sharpshooter said:

It lays at the feet of the one making the claim. 
 

The one claiming something has to provide some evidence to back it up. 
 

Otherwise the claim is faulty. 

 

What is the evidence for the hypothesis that the universe emerged from a place of non-sentience?

[Optimist Prime]

4 minutes ago, 112 said:

I'm still unsure of where the burden of proof really lies when talking about creation/the beginnings of the universe. It seems that a lot of people in this thread think claims of it being a deity that started the Big Bang need to be brought with evidence to have credence, but there's similarly no evidence that the universe just spawned out of nowhere. This is to say: we know the what but not the why/how. Obviously the universe exploded/expanded from a singularity, but to claim that this just happened is making a claim likewise the claim that it was a deity.

 

I see a lot of people referring to texts such as the Bible, Qu'ran and Gita and the obvious insanity of the contents as reasons to disbelieve in god(s), but meanwhile the origins of everything are not well-enough understood by science for divinity to be disproved. It's equally unfalsifiable to say that the universe simply began as it is to say that the universe has theological origins. Both sides are making a claim to substitute for knowledge which no community on earth has.

 

I really do think this whole "burden of proof" thing is misunderstood here; this is a philosophical conversation and not necessarily a scientific one. We do not have scientific knowledge that there is no creator and the universe emerged from a point of non-sentience. We do have a great amount of knowledge disproving claims made within the Bible and other religious texts, but there is nothing to disprove a vague creator who was present at the initiation of time.

Good post, good insight. 

 

For me, over a few hundred years, scientific literacy has increased dramatically in the world, and in so happening, all the things we used to see as spooky or otherwordly or godly or ghostly influenced we now know have rather common physical beginnings that can be pointed to with science. Lets just use the one easy example of seizures. Not that long ago it was a devil inside the victim causing the affliction and it was treated with prayer and holy water. Now not even five years ago my friends child who had 25 seizures a day almost from birth, was made seizure free with diet restrictions, cbd oil and medical intervention. 

 

Where science is expanded upon, religion retreats. This has been so for almost ever: and if it weren't for the violent upholding of religions grasp on whatever community you want to look at, more of our long since murdered scientists may have lived longer and produced more good work and we may be even further advanced. We might even know the beginnings of our universe. We might even know it is a multiverse, rather than theorize it. Not knowing what started it all, (and perhaps it never started but always was, as an option too, we don't know) but not knowing the principles behind it, or behind anything doesn't for me invite a Supernatural force into the conversation: if you don't know, just say you dont know, not "God Did IT'.

[Sharpshooter]

11 minutes ago, 112 said:

 

What is the evidence for the hypothesis that the universe emerged from a place of non-sentience?

I added more to the previous post btw. 
 

To your reply, you’re attempting to proffer the question, prove their isn’t a sentient maker of the Universe. 
 

Quantum Fluctuations is what our species has been able to put forth, thus far, based on Math and Physics. So far the trend is towards a natural explanation, and away from a supernatural one. 
 

 

With respect. 
 

 

[Sharpshooter]

9 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

Good post, good insight. 

 

For me, over a few hundred years, scientific literacy has increased dramatically in the world, and in so happening, all the things we used to see as spooky or otherwordly or godly or ghostly influenced we now know have rather common physical beginnings that can be pointed to with science. Lets just use the one easy example of seizures. Not that long ago it was a devil inside the victim causing the affliction and it was treated with prayer and holy water. Now not even five years ago my friends child who had 25 seizures a day almost from birth, was made seizure free with diet restrictions, cbd oil and medical intervention. 

 

Where science is expanded upon, religion retreats. This has been so for almost ever: and if it weren't for the violent upholding of religions grasp on whatever community you want to look at, more of our long since murdered scientists may have lived longer and produced more good work and we may be even further advanced. We might even know the beginnings of our universe. We might even know it is a multiverse, rather than theorize it. Not knowing what started it all, (and perhaps it never started but always was, as an option too, we don't know) but not knowing the principles behind it, or behind anything doesn't for me invite a Supernatural force into the conversation: if you don't know, just say you dont know, not "God Did IT'.

In a roundabout way, I have faith that we’re saying the same thing. 

[112]

49 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

I added more to the previous post btw. 
 

To your reply, you’re attempting to proffer the question, prove their isn’t a sentient maker of the Universe. 
 

Quantum Fluctuations is what our species has been able to put forth, thus far, based on Math and Physics. So far the trend is towards a natural explanation, and away from a supernatural one. 
 

 

With respect. 
 

 

 

I am always writing from a point of respect in these conversations as well.  And I'm more from the atheist side of things although argue agnosticism, not theism per se.

 

I don't think I'm proffering such a question; I'm merely stating that there has to be a binary 1 or 0 to the question of whether the universe was started by a being and to assume negatively here is in line with scientific thinking but not necessarily philosophical thinking. I'm claiming that to speak absolutely on either side's behalf requires evidence, not simply the side of theism.

 

I'm interested in any articles or papers you can share on quantum fluctuations btw. I've read little about the Big Bang for how much I bring it up. A natural creation does seem entirely possible, and just as I don't get people on the extreme atheist side, I don't get theists who think a natural creation of the universe to be impossible.

 

 

[Optimist Prime]

30 minutes ago, 112 said:

I'm interested in any articles or papers you can share on quantum fluctuations btw. I've read little about the Big Bang for how much I bring it up.

You may enjoy StarTalk with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and another youtube channel i subscribe to, Veritasium. Here is a random vid from each that you can subscribe to them through for free. 

 

 

hehe, considering the topic of the thread, i should finish up by mentioning the God particle. 

: ) 

happy research!

[Ilunga]

14 hours ago, Optimist Prime said:

I think this has been asked and answered in the literary world, Chris Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, et cetera. 

If all of these north american true believers happened to be born in India, they would have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that an Elephant God rode a mouse in a race around the universe and won! Instead, by shear luck of the draw, or random number generator they were born in North America to a a Christian family and so believe that God had to force a woman to have his baby so that he could kill that child to forgive humanity for the sins that he, the creator, created himself, and then he raises that dead child from the grave, like in GITMO where they synthesize the drowning death of the torture victims over and over and over again... it is absurd, but you get the point. 

If no child was indoctrinated into a cult from birth, and every adult human at 18 had to choose to be religious or not and then what religion: by and large the planet would be athiest. 

 

14 hours ago, Optimist Prime said:

I do agree with you StrayDog, i have read three different bibles, 12 of the texts that were voted out of the bible (there were many more that didn't make the final cut in the 1200's by the way, at I believe the Council of Nicea?) The Koran, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita and other hindu texts even some cobbled togethter Zoroastrian tenets. Most of these are on my bookshelf still, and several books written by the man who Buddhists uphold as the reincarnation of the Buddha. The art of happiness being my favourite from him. They are important texts to humanity, there is no doubt, for they shaped the world through their various believers and those who manipulate those believers vis a vis the historical overwhelming violence that the believers set upon the "other" in their worlds. 

I have studied mythology and theology and came to find they are the same practice, the same field. The only difference between the two are the former has no current following of any mass large enough to trouble the rest of us, and the later still uses violence to propagate. 

 

I know you, like I, have some background in the study of comparative religions.

 

You state that if born in a different place people would believe in the " religion" of the place they were born.

 

When you cut to the core of them all they are really all the same. 

The tree of life has been represented in Ancient Egypt, Christianity, Buddhist, African, Turkish and Celtic cultures. 

 

 

" Horus similar to Mithra 

Attis analogous to Krishna

Jesus different name same story

All based on an ancient Egyptian Allegory "

 

Mike Burkett

 

And yes I knew this before I heard the song blasphemy. 

 

They contain the same major themes, virgin Birth, Resurrection, " good/ bad " place afterlife. 

 

These allegories are universal.

What does that tell you about the innate need the majority of humans have to believe in a creator being/ after life.

 

Is it the allegories fault that humans twist their meanings to suit their own ends ?

 

If those allegories did not exist, humans would create other reasons to justify their actions.

That is what humans do.

It's called human nature. 

 

Humans will always do things that the majority define as bad, just as they will always do what the majority define as good. 

 

As for indoctrination, many people question their faith during their lives. 

Some lose it, some gain it.

 

 

[Ilunga]

8 hours ago, Sharpshooter said:

It lays at the feet of the one making the claim. 
 

The one claiming something has to provide some evidence to back it up. 
 

Otherwise the claim is faulty. 
 

I claim that there are, for example, there are flying manatees. I believe that to my core. Someone says I haven’t seen any flying manatees, and then the first person replies with, well you have to have faith. It was written down a long time ago, and most people believe in some kind of flying manatee. 

 

Prove they don’t have exist. 

 

 

" Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence "

 

Carl Sagan 

 

" If there is a lack of evidence of a presence of a thing, does not always conclude to the absence of that thing totally. 

 

 

[Ilunga]

Religious people we all love.

How can you not love the Dycks