MegaSack DRAW - 6pm Christmas Eve - LIVE on our YouTube Channel
The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that something happened or exists.
In a court of law, sure.
if you plagiarise someone else's words at least acknowledge that when you quote him.
Yes. Sorry. Late, great and sadly missed...
that's what I mean by arguing in religion. You can't prove that I didn't do a double back flip off the kerb outside my house on my sons trike last night. You can look at any available witness evidence on my past riding and test my riding in future and you'll come to the conclusion that in all probability I'm talking bollocks but you can't prove it didn't happen. you can't prove a negative (james randi I think)I have yet to see any concrete, peer-reviewed court-admissable evidence that the resurrection of Lazarus did not happen.
In a court of law, sure.
Nope, generally.
Presumably his "someone has" referred to Jesus. According to the bible, Jesus hasn't come back from heaven.
Pff - I'll dig out his email address* and you can discuss it with him if you want, I'm just passing on what I heard and doing a very bad job of it. 🙂
Edit - * The vicar's, not Jesus's.
I have yet to see any concrete, peer-reviewed court-admissable evidence that the resurrection of Lazarus did not happen. I'm playing devil's advocate, of course, but live by the sword, die by the sword and all that.
You're obviously not getting it.
You owe me £100,000,000. When are you paying? You cannot provide any peer-reviewed court-admissable evidence that you don't, simply because [u]it is not possible to prove a negative[/u].
All I wanted to do was say that Christianity isn't all bad, like people were saying. 🙁
Every now and then someone will post about how religion makes people do good, but affection, compassion, kindness, friendship, sorrow, loyalty, and purpose are not the preserve of any belief system; they are endemic to many animals including man.
All I wanted to do was say that Christianity isn't all bad, like people were saying.
Well, although I 100% see where you're coming from, my mum's a Christian and she's lovely, the point remains that:
A: It's nonsense.
B: Religions as a whole (including Christianity), are (or have been) responsible for homophobia, subjugation of woman, and child genital mutilation. No amount of 'good' makes that acceptable.
I'm just passing on what I heard
And I was just making the point that, often, Christians don't actually know very much about what they are supposed to believe.
All I wanted to do was say that Christianity isn't all bad, like people were saying.
I don't think anyone's saying that it's all bad. They're pointing out some of the issues with both the beliefs themselves and the past and present actions of some followers of the religion.
For the record, I'm married to a Christian and she's ok; I've never seen her stone a fornicator or anything. But, she's one of the woolly liberal ones.
Yeah, can't argue with that, and I hope I haven't suggested otherwise. But to everyone who listedt the evils done in the name of religion, I'd say that a lot of good has been done too.
I'd just like to point out that:
1: There is no evidence to support the idea of a historical "Jesus" or any of the events portrayed in that connection. Indeed, the gospels actually read like four works of fiction, none of which agree with each other in details.
2: The idea that the character of Jesus's mother was a virgin is the result of an early mistranslation from the greek.
Also, for the sake of balance - there has never been any horse that could fly, or various gods living on top of Olympus.
And so on...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1572150/quotes.
Hitchens sometimes gets written off as an atheist tub thumper but this quote demonstrates the depth and nuance of his thinking.
Every now and then someone will post about how religion makes people do good, but affection, compassion, kindness, friendship, sorrow, loyalty, and purpose are not the preserve of any belief system; they are endemic to many animals including man
I would add that an individual's faith might make them do more good than they, personally, would otherwise do. But yeah, if I thought about it I could probably think of some non-Christians that are 'nicer' people than some Christians I know. Ultimately it's about believing in God or not. It should improve how you are as a person but I guess we all have different starting points and rates of improvement. (I'm not suggesting that improving as a person is the sole preserve of those with faith, just that it should be a motivating factor).
Bit late with the edit...
I'd just like to point out that:
1: There is no evidence to support the idea of a historical "Jesus" or any of the events portrayed in that connection. Indeed, the gospels actually read like four works of fiction, none of which agree with each other in details.
2: The idea that the character of Jesus's mother was a virgin is the result of an early mistranslation from the greek.
Also, for the sake of balance - there has never been any horse that could fly, or various gods living on top of Olympus.
And so on...
B: Religions as a whole (including Christianity), are (or have been) responsible for homophobia, subjugation of woman, and child genital mutilation. No amount of 'good' makes that acceptable.
At the risk of wearing out this little drum I keep banging on, I'd say that, as good, compassionate and sociable behaviour is a trait inherent in people irrespective of their religious beliefs, so is bad, eveil and nasty.
Hitchens sometimes gets written off as an atheist tub thumper
Which is odd, his public appearances were never less than measured and polite. Much in the same way as Richard Dawkins is often described as "shrill"...
Some identity transferrance going on there, I think.
A: It's nonsense.
B: Religions as a whole (including Christianity), are (or have been) responsible for homophobia, subjugation of woman, and child genital mutilation. No amount of 'good' makes that acceptable.
That's a really stupid argument.
That's like saying that people have been responsible for wars and death, therefore Sesame Street is evil.
The idea that the character of Jesus's mother was a virgin is the result of an early mistranslation from the greek.
Now that does surprise me. I've long been under the impression* that there are dozens of virgin birth stories, along with resurrection and messiah type stories that have been around since the history (and probably prehistory of humans).
Aren't there quite strong parallels between the stories in the Bible and equivalent theistic/mythological stories in unrelated parts of the world (South Ameerica, Africa and the Far East)? What I'm saying is that these things crop up on a pretty regualar basis in humna cultures that are far removed from each other anyway so I'm surprised the Bible doesn't follow a similar model to others.
* But I'm no Anthropological Theologist/Mythologist so make of that what you will.
Ultimately it's about believing in God or not.
But if you believe in a fiction then all the "thou shall"s and "thou shalt not"s that are a required for you to measure up to this fictitious deity's standards are also fiction. In which case they must be either delusional ramblings (highly dangerous basis for moral authority) or deliberate inventions (eg, for the purpose of giving certain people power over others).
therefore Sesame Street is evil.
Sesame Street advocated genital mutilation? Must have missed that episode.
But if you believe in a fiction then all the "thou shall"s and "thou shalt not"s that are a required for you to measure up to this fictitious deity's standards
Over and over again, we get Theism, Christianity and the Bible all mixed up with each other.
THEY ARE NOT ALL EQUIVALENT!
Please try and take this on board.
Oh, ok molgrips, but if your deity expects nothing of you, or has not revealed "His" message through divine revelation then what is "He" for?
At the risk of wearing out this little drum I keep banging on, I'd say that, as good, compassionate and sociable behaviour is a trait inherent in people irrespective of their religious beliefs, so is bad, eveil and nasty.
But people being evil because they are evil is one thing, totally different to people doing evil because their silly beliefs calls for it isn't it? Being evil because otherwise their god will punish them?
Over and over again, we get Theism, Christianity and the Bible all mixed up with each other.THEY ARE NOT ALL EQUIVALENT!
Please try and take this on board.
He was replying to a christian who said the only requirement to be a christian was to believe in god.
That's a really stupid argument.That's like saying that people have been responsible for wars and death, therefore Sesame Street is evil.
REALLY? 😯
**** me, I must be thicker than I thought (and I think I'm quite thick). Explain to me just how that is in any way similar.
Over and over again, we get Theism, Christianity and the Bible all mixed up with each other.THEY ARE NOT ALL EQUIVALENT!
Actually they are. They are all nonsense.
I'd add Jesus to that!
Oh, ok molgrips, but if your deity expects nothing of you, or has not revealed "His" message through divine revelation then what is "He" for?
Who the hell knows? Maybe he's not 'for' anything? If there really was a divine being who created everything, he could just be doing it for the hell of it surely?
All that stuff about God loving us and needing worship and the like, that's all just the Bible. You can believe in God without having to believe in the Bible at all - or just bits of it. It's up to you. You may consider the Bible to be a collection of writings by people, or the word of God.
Actually they are. They are all nonsense.
Not equivalent nonsense though.
That's a really stupid argument.That's like saying that people have been responsible for wars and death, therefore Sesame Street is evil.
Name one evil act that has been committed in the name of sesame street. Just one.
Mr Woppit - MemberI'd just like to point out that:
1: There is no evidence to support the idea of a historical "Jesus" or any of the events portrayed in that connection. Indeed, the gospels actually read like four works of fiction, none of which agree with each other in details.
2: The idea that the character of Jesus's mother was a virgin is the result of an early mistranslation from the greek.
1: Without making any claim for divinity of Jesus, there is exactly the same sort of evidence for an historical 'Jesus' as there is for an historical 'Caesar' or many other historical figures. Documentary accounts that correspond with archaeological data. You may, of course, wish to interpret the claims of some of those accounts differently to those for whom they were written, but I am afraid that what constitutes history is made up of facts and figures determined by precisely the same sort of evidence that you are deriding. From the point of view of genre alone, the Gospels do not look like fiction works at all. Such categories have no application in antique literature.
2: You make this claim based on what, and whose, evidence? Some History Channel spokesperson? I read Greek. In fact, I read [i]that[/i] Greek. Never in my time in the universities have I heard such a claim.
Jesus lived in Jerusalem and his bezzie mates were called Mathew, Mark, luke & john!
jekkyl - MemberJesus lived in Jerusalem and his bezzie mates were called Mathew, Mark, luke & john!
However flippant, that is at least closer to the historical truth, as determined by conventional historical/archaelogical/palaeological means, than Woppit's simple dismissal. Bear in mind, of course, that I am not, by saying so, making any further claims in that statement.
@ SaxonRider.
1: Just two examples of the historicity of Caeser not shared by the alleged Nazarene - coins and contemporaneous, witnessed accounts. The gospels were all written long after the alleged crucifiction. Many assume that the quoted authors are the disciples. Not so.
Just one example of many on the fiction - "jesus" is standing alone in the garden of Gethsemane having a detailed conversation with "god". Others present are described as being at a distance and asleep. This being the case, who is doing the reporting?
More of interest here: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
To get back to the original subject of the thread: similarly, in that all accounts of "jesus" and his actions derive from people who heard of it at least second hand and are not reliable witnesses, the idea of there being a "god" and an "afterlife", is just people saying so because they have heard other people saying so. There remains, after all this time, no actual evidence...
This is interesting too: [url= http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm ]Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'[/url]
Name one evil act that has been committed in the name of sesame street. Just one.
Doing evil in the name of Jesus does not make Jesus responsible.
SaxonRider - how about a short spin Sunday morning?
There remains, after all this time, no actual evidence...
We've touched on this before, but absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Doing evil in the name of Jesus does not make Jesus responsible.
There have throughout history been plenty of evil acts perpetrated by the religious in the name of their religion. Now how about answering the question that I actually asked rather than trying to shift the goalposts.
We've touched on this before, but absence of proof is not proof of absence.
No one has argued otherwise. Absence of proof however doesn't mean that you can make anything you like up and use the absense of proof as some sort of vinciation of it's truth.
Which question? Can I name any evil acts perpetrated in the name of Sesame Street?
I thought it was a rhetorical device rather than a real question. The answer is no, I cannot. Obviously. But I think you are not really following the point I was trying to make.
Oh no I was following it just fine. I was trying to get you admit that your criticism of
B: Religions as a whole (including Christianity), are (or have been) responsible for homophobia, subjugation of woman, and child genital mutilation. No amount of 'good' makes that acceptable.
that you called a "stupid argument" was a false equivalent and not logically sound.
"Jesus lived in Jerusalem"
But Joseph and Mary were not from Nazareth.
Odd how the Jews got to Crucify him too
I don't think you are following it GF, there are two different arguments in my posts.
1) People have justified bad things with religion. That does not make religion a bad concept, nor does it make everyone involved with it culpable.
2) Saying that an act is done 'in the name of' something does not make that thing responsible.
1) People have justified bad things with religion. That does not make religion a bad concept, nor does it make everyone involved with it culpable.
Well it does if they don't condem it. I'm also reminded of the quote regarding what it takes for good people to do bad things that I'm sure you've heard.
2) Saying that an act is done 'in the name of' something does not make that thing responsible.
It does when it has the approval, explicit or otherwise, or is indeed a central tenant of that particular belief system.
Well it does if they don't condem it.
I don't think so.
It does when it has the approval, explicit or otherwise, or is indeed a central tenant of that particular belief system.
Like what? Which religions have evil as their central tenets?
TuckerUK - Member
B: Religions as a whole (including Christianity), are (or have been) responsible for homophobia, subjugation of woman, and child genital mutilation. No amount of 'good' makes that acceptable.
No, people as a whole are responsible for those things. You are saying the equivalent of the existence of Chemistry as a science was responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews in gas chambers. Not true.
...or may be Tucker is missing the central concept of free will?
Perhaps there is some sort of over-riding religious determinism at work that we are not aware of?
[out of interest, what's the page record for a "God" thread?]
Steven Weinberg summed it up nicely:
[b]“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” [/b]
Steven Weinberg summed it up nicely:
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
Nicely but erroneously perhaps...? A huge number of 'good' people committed atrocities during the Second World War, leading to a huge interest in studies revolving around compliance. What most people seem to need to complete heinous acts is someone with authority telling them. No need for religion.
Nicely but erroneously perhaps...? A huge number of 'good' people committed atrocities during the Second World War, leading to a huge interest in studies revolving around compliance. What most people seem to need to complete heinous acts is someone with authority telling them. No need for religion.
I've seen it argued that one reason people are compliant is because religion conditions them to be. So, Stalin was able to have the power and control which he did because he replaced the church.
Given that, above, it was being argued that religion makes people behave better, thank goodness most of the German soldiers in WWII were raised as Catholics or Calvinists otherwise think of the horrors they would have committed.
out of interest, what's the page record for a "God" thread?
A LOT
No, people as a whole are responsible for those things.
Of course they are. They invented Religion. 😉
You are saying the equivalent of the existence of Chemistry as a science was responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews in gas chambers. Not true.
I said responsible, I did not say wholly responsible. A great many people would not do the evil acts they do (or did) if it wasn't required of them by their faith. We know this, because it is written thus, and because every time they are asked to justify their homophobia, subjugation of woman, mistreatment of animals and child genital mutilation they tell us it's their religious duty to do so.
Trying to win an argument with a semi-educated atheist of at least average intelligence is like trying to ask the tide not to come in. Good luck with that.
We've touched on this before, but absence of proof is not proof of absence.
And we've touched on THAT before. Where no evidence exists FOR something, it can safely be dismissed. It's basic common sense (for an adult).
Otherwise, can I have that £1,000,000,000 you owe me (there's no evidence you owe me that, but that shouldn't trouble you).
Nicely but erroneously perhaps...? A huge number of 'good' people committed atrocities during the Second World War, leading to a huge interest in studies revolving around compliance.
So being religious is like being a Nazi?
Where no evidence exists FOR something, it can safely be dismissed. It's basic common sense
No, it can't, and no it isn't.
SOME things can be dismissed without evidence, based on extrapolated probability. You know where money comes from and what it is, and how people deal with it, so you are unlikely to be owed £1bn by any of us and we're unlikely to have it.
If there were something about the universe that you didn't understand (and yes this is possible despite your stance) then you would not be able to understand the evidence, would you?
If there were something about the universe that you didn't understand (and yes this is possible despite your stance) then you would not be able to understand the evidence, would you?
If there were something that we didn't understand, what is the probability that the answer is 'god'?
Why are you asking me? None of us know. You apparently think you know.
We can only base our assessment of probability on our experiences. As an old Japanese proverb puts it, a frog in a well doens't know the ocean.
Day 1 - God created light and separated the light from the darkness, calling light "day" and darkness "night."
Day 2 - God created an expanse to separate the waters and called it "sky."
Day 3 - God created the dry ground and gathered the waters, calling the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters "seas." On day three, God also created vegetation (plants and trees).
Day 4 - God created the sun, moon, and the stars to give light to the earth and to govern and separate the day and the night. These would also serve as signs to mark seasons, days, and years.
Day 5 - God created every living creature of the seas and every winged bird, blessing them to multiply and fill the waters and the sky with life.
Day 6 - God created the animals to fill the earth. On day six, God also created man and woman (Adam and Eve) in his own image to commune with him. He blessed them and gave them every creature and the whole earth to rule over, care for, and cultivate.
Day 7 - God had finished his work of creation and so he rested on the seventh day, blessing it and making it holy.
Day 1 would not be possible without Day 4 happening?? There is no light or days without the sun! Lost me at Day 1, its ridiculous.
Given that, above, it was being argued that religion makes people behave better, thank goodness most of the German soldiers in WWII were raised as Catholics or Calvinists otherwise think of the horrors they would have committed.
The vast bulk of German soldiers committed no atrocities whatsoever. It could be argued possibly that being raised as Christians was one of the reasons for this. The vast bulk of atrocities were carried out by fanatical Nazis with no religious beliefs to restrain their immoral actions.
Why are you asking me? None of us know.
Because you brought probability into it.
Throughout mankind's time on this planet, there have been many things we've not known or understood. Every time we've discovered a reason something happens or found a cause, the answer has been "not god" 100% of the time. Extrapolating from this, "not god" seems a likely answer to any future questions.
You apparently think you know.
I am an atheist. All that means is that I do not believe in any god, not that I claim to know that there is not one.
Do I think there might be one? I think that the chances are vanishingly small, so it would be reasonable to conclude that there is not. However, my mind is 'open' and if presented with evidence I would consider it.
The vast bulk of atrocities were carried out by fanatical Nazis with no religious beliefs to restrain their immoral actions.
Do you have any evidence of this? In the early 20th century, the majority of people in Germany would have been raised in a christian household, wouldn't they? Hitler himself was raised as a Catholic.
What was the religion of the Allied airmen who firebombed German cities?
Trying to win an argument with a semi-educated atheist of at least average intelligence is like trying to ask the tide not to come in. Good luck with that.
That's probably why he's chosen to argue with you instead.
Day 1 - God created light and separated the light from the darkness, calling light "day"...........Lost me at Day 1, its [s]ridiculous.[/s] allegorical
HTH
its [s]ridiculous[/s] allegorical
All the parts of the bible that people choose to ignore are allegorical. It's only the bits that they choose to follow that are literal.
All the parts of the bible that people choose to ignore
If only there where a way for us to know what bits to ignore 🙂
Every time we've discovered a reason something happens or found a cause, the answer has been "not god" 100% of the time.
Except for the one really really big one! God is as valid an answer for that as any other!
^That is the god of the gaps.
Day 8 . God created sweet forest Singletrack and he looked upon and proclaimed...
I think that on Jekkyl's note, he should have the last word on this thread.
Please God, let it be so.
😉
Except for the one really really big one! God is as valid an answer for that as any other!
So you think that myself being the creator of everything is a valid answer? Have you thought about therapy? Seriously?
Please God, let it be so.
As I used to say to my kids before they learnt common manners, if the conversation isn't to your tastes excuse yourself/s and go elsewhere.
TuckerUK - Member
As I used to say to my kids before they learnt common manners, if the conversation isn't to your tastes excuse yourself/s and go elsewhere.
Tucker: It might have sucked, but it was my attempt at a joke.
As a matter of fact, I find the recent threads about religion far, far less hostile and nasty than they were a few years back.
So I guess if you need me to be more explicit: carry on.
SOME things can be dismissed without evidence, based on extrapolated probability. You know where money comes from and what it is, and how people deal with it, so you are unlikely
But unlikely isn't the same as PROOF is it. So, you cannot disprove it. It's really an extremely simple concept to embrace. If unlikely WAS the same as proof, no gods exists.
Tucker: It might have sucked, but it was my attempt at a joke.
In that case apologies for my pre-emptive attack expecting a forthcoming attack for my prolonging the thread!
The vast bulk of atrocities were carried out by fanatical Nazis with no religious beliefs to restrain their immoral actions
[img]
[/img]?
Coz frankly that's sounds like emotive made up bobbins.
9 pages!!!
This tread is closed now.
Nothing to see.
Go away.
🙄
God is as valid an answer for that as any other
Its not as I assume by valid you mean
having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
We know most of the "facts" in its account are wrong about the creation of the universe, its age and our planets age, the heliocentric nature of our solar system, evolution. Its not valid really, I dont think it is even close tbh. in fact it so far off close most christains dont preach creationism.
In essence we know the working out is wrong but yes it could just be the case that the conclusion is "valid" [ correct] however it is extremely unlikely. Given this I would also argue it is not as valid as any other and its unwise to argue otherwise and I think the accounts with evidence are considerably more valid
TRUE dat and allegorical really means fable or myth in this context which means WRONGAll the parts of the bible that people choose to ignore are allegorical. It's only the bits that they choose to follow that are literal.
and proclaimed..
... What tyres for creating the World?
Its not as I assume by valid you mean
having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
We know most of the "facts" in its account are wrong about the creation of the universe, its age and our planets age, the heliocentric nature of our solar system, evolution. Its not valid really, I dont think it is even close tbh. in fact it so far off close most christains dont preach creationism.
I assume when molgrips is referring to the concept of a god being valid, he's talking about the abstract concept of a god as opposed to say the Christian concept of God.
god as a creator is a perfectly valid and reasonable argument. The problem is that it's impossible to derive anything else from that initial assertion and as such isn't a particularly useful starting point. But it's still a perfectly valid starting point.
Thread closed.
🙄
Every time we've discovered a reason something happens or found a cause, the answer has been "not god" 100% of the time.
Except for the one really really big one! God is as valid an answer for that as any other!
An answer which has not been correct every time so far isn't as valid as any other.
Unless your definition of god is "the ultimate cause of the universe". Then god is always the answer to the question "what is the ultimate cause of the universe?" However, God then probably ceases to be the answer to many other questions.
You're also then left with another question: what created god? Or, science discovers the cause of the universe and you're left with no god.
