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.
9 pages!!!This tread is closed now.
The religion threads general get more interesting and less argumentative after about 9 pages, because there're generally only a handful of people contributing at that point, who are all genuinely interested in the discussion.
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.
I'd agree. Certainly less hostile and argumentative than really controversial issues like how much molgrips spends o his lunch 🙂
@ Iam Munro
It is still not as a valid as its not really testable [ and other accounts have some evidence to support them] but yes it may still be correct
as mike notes what made me first doubt my religious indoctrination /education in primary school was that it answered no questions instead of asking what made me i now just ask what made 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.
It is still not as a valid as its not really testable [ and other accounts have some evidence to support them] but yes it may still be correct
There are various possible answers to the question of [url= http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm ]what existed before the big bang?[/url]
The religious would probably start with god as an answer and work forward from there. Science starts with what we know and works backward.
As I said earlier, the answer (if it's ever found) will probably turn out to be "not god".
Yup I absolutely agree Junkyard and Mike, god as an answer serves no useful purpose.
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.
I guess partly the problem with such questions is that we are working on the assumption that the universe as we perceive it actually exists, and isn't just a pretty basic computer simulation running in a universe infinitely more complicated that our senses could perceive. Of course again such conjecture doesn't really get you anywhere useful, but I reckon it's one of the things that's always worth remembering in who created god, or what created the universe arguments.
Junkyard. And possibly others. Let me spell this out really clearly.
The creation story in the bible is clearly and verifiably wrong. We know this. Don't bother asserting it.
However, if it is wrong, that does not mean that God does not exist.
An answer which has not been correct every time so far isn't as valid as any other
The question "did God create the universe?" has never been answered. Lots of other questions have, but like I said not the big one.
As IanMunro said, there is absolutely nothing that can prove or disprove the existence of God. That's why it's called faith. You believe that there is no God (as do I) but it's just a belief. Impossible to prove otherwise, which is where we leave science behind and enter philosophy. It's not even a scientific debate.
molgrips - MemberJunkyard. And possibly others. Let me spell this out really clearly.
The creation story in the bible is clearly and verifiably wrong. We know this. Don't bother asserting it.
Actually, it's no more 'wrong' than poetry is 'wrong'. It recounts something in the language of antiquity to explain what appeared to be a reality.
Is The Odyssey wrong? Perhaps if people used it to describe exactly what happened at a certain point in time to a certain man. But that is NOT why any sane person would read the Odyssey.
You are quite right of course SaxonRider. I am of the opinion that people write creation stories as an art form rather than a supposed factual account. For a start, how would anyone know what God did? Man didn't even exist then.
I was pointing out that just because we can prove that the world was not created according to Genesis does not mean God does not exist.
well you can weigh up the evidence,look at the probabilities and take a gamble* that the answer is "not god"**It's not even a scientific debate
*ignoring for the moment that obfuscating **** Pascal
**cheers Mike I shall be using that next time I discuss religion with my sister 😀
With respect to Genesis, I am sure SaxonRider chose the word poetry for a reason!?!
The religious would probably start with god as an answer and work forward from there. Science starts with what we know and works backward.
For the record, the religious don't actually think about it much. The religio-philosophical tradition and questions regarding origins tend to be limited to philosophers of religion. Professional theologians take existence for granted (or just assume that questions about existence can not be proved), and spend their time thinking about hermeneutics, exegesis, history, ethics, systematics, etc.
What we tend to discuss on these threads is not so much religion [i]per se[/i], as philosophy of religion - and that on the most cursory of bases (due principally to the limitations inherent to an online forum).
Professional theologians take existence for granted (or just assume that questions about existence can not be proved), and spend their time thinking about hermeneutics, exegesis, history, ethics, systematics, etc.
But always in the context of some religious base texts? I mean, what does the Bible have to say about such and such- how is this to be interpreted? If we start from the basis that the Bible is not divinely inspired then the rest is a waste of time.
*substitute religious text of your choice for "the Bible" (above) before somebody goes off on one.
well you can weigh up the evidence,look at the probabilities and take a gamble
No, you can't.
Of course you are right that theologians start from a divine text. They just don't read it the way it is being caricatured on here.
I can't remember the thread, but I remember explaining on here somewhere that a theologian approaches texts like art or poetry. In reading them, s/he seeks to peel back the layers to understand what is being said, what questions are being addressed. S/he does NOT take them literally any more than - as I say - the Odyssey might be taken literally. I mean, some archaeology has been done to reveal that certain locations mentioned by Homer existed, and that there was an historical basis for talking about creatures like the minotaur (eg. a human sacrifice cult on Crete).
So being religious is like being a Nazi?
Not at all. The Nazis were not the only people completing atrocious acts. Japanese, Soviets, and Allies - all to differing extents and amounts.
well you can weigh up the evidence,look at the probabilities and take a gamble
No, you can't.
Everyone else can make a reasonable "guess" when presented with the evidence
the reasonable guess is to assume that god is made up as there is no evidence to support it just as there is no evidence to support anything else that does not exist, its not like we have not looked
We all know you cannot prove a negative [ or we would have no need for this debate] but what you keep ignoring is that this fact does not automatically make the argument put forward credible or equally valid to the alternatives.
Your view would be me saying the invisible honey monster kick started the universe with fart when he was bored is as valid as the scientific account - again you cannot prove this is false so you will respect it and call it equally valid then.
Only a fool *would agree they are "equally valid or plausible"
yes they are the keepers of the true knowledge as god is really crap at passing on the message.In reading them, s/he seeks to peel back the layers to understand what is being said,
FWIW i agree much of the book is vague/open to interpretation but comparing it to a work of fiction is probably not the best defence you can mount IMHO
* I mean no offence but really it is a daft position to claim these accounts are all equally valid
Read about Milgram's experiment on conformity for interesting schizzle about how scarily sheeplike we all are.
[url= http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment ]Linky[/url]
yes they are the keepers of the true knowledge as god is really crap at passing on the message.
FWIW i agree much of the book is vague/open to interpretation but comparing it to a work of fiction is probably not the best defence you can mount IMHO
I am not really comparing the Bible to a 'work of fiction'. I am saying that the Homeric texts (The Iliad and the Odyssey) were written down to serve an almost identical purpose as the Biblical texts.
And yes, if you - or anyone - thinks that if God existed he should have just made it known in no uncertain terms, and intervened in creation, or established things differently to the way they are, then your comment about theologians being 'keepers of true knowledge' is bang on.
It's just that a substantial number of people over the course of human history haven't shared your expectation. Wished for it, perhaps; but not shared it.
IMO there may be some kind of higher being(s)...but not in the manner that religions would have us believe.
I respect others beliefs...until they start trying to indoctrinate me, whereupon I get very irate...please also respect the fact I'm a non believer! 🙄
Can anyone define who/what god is supposed to be?
Everyone else can make a reasonable "guess" when presented with the evidence
What evidence? Evidence of the lack of a supreme being? Or are you talking about BBC News articles about cosmology?
Meh
if there is a point there molgrips it is lost on me
Do you wish to claim the honey monster is equally valid or not?
Perhaps the afterlife does exist in so much as only in the minds of those who have recently experienced bereavement, wishing those they have known an eternal happy life. Is that enough to give it credence?
Death is terrifyingly sad & our lives have such finality, I don't want to die.. I love life.
I don't believe in god but did any of you stop and think that after defending and rationalising your right not to believe in god, that you should let people take comfort however they see fit be it in god, valium or jack daniels as sinatra once put it.
Get some humanity, you smug unenlightened troop of shit throwing apes. That is all, this thread is utterly predictable and so philosophically and intellectually boring that I won't play any further part in it.
Scratch that, there were snippets in this thread that were mildly interesting such as Mikes link.
Perhaps people looking to not have their belief in the afterlife shaken shouldn't look at forum threads about the afterlife?
Besides, of this thread is enough to shake your faith, it's not going to survive something like the death of a loved one.
I believe in the power of American natives
Perhaps people looking to not have their belief in the afterlife shaken shouldn't look at forum threads about the afterlife?
Not to speak on behalf of other people, but whilst I don't think this thread is likely to shake anyone's beliefs, it does rather feel like there's a scent of "there's not a SHRED of proof, you'd have to be an eedjit to believe in god". Not that explicitly, of course, but it feels a bit like someone asked the question, people have been answering, and more people have been going "well, that's b@lls".
I need to step away from this thread, I burned a lot of time in here yesterday! 🙁
miketually - Member
Besides, of this thread is enough to shake your faith, it's not going to survive something like the death of a loved one.
Having just gone through this myself - losing my father who was a religious person - I can say that it was his faith that helped more than anything else over the past few weeks. This is not the place to go into details, but the whole experince strengthened rather than weakened my belief in life everlasting and the existence of God, albeit in a different manner to my father's.
I enjoy studying the worlds different religions and focus on the common ground rather than the differences between them. For me that study is very uplifting and helpful and a powerful aid in facing the challenges that life presents. I am very happy to question the obvious inconsistencies that may/may not exist within and across the world's religions (and that includes The Blble and other sacred texts) and, more importantly, the way that humans interpret them, but that doesn't detract me (at least) from the far more powerful, positive and strengthening messages that each contain. Faith should not be forced on anyone. It is a wonderful gift IMO but it should be left to each person to chose whether to accept or reject it themselves. Free will is an important part of that gift after all!!!
Hold on THM - so Russell Brand is somehow less worthy of our attention for having 'a skewed moral compass' but yet your delusional fantasy world/religious escapism is perfectly valid..?
that's double standards surely?
If you remember my ACTUAL point, Brand has his valid opinions (most of which I agree with) but there are better people IMO to represent them.
Meanwhile I will happily delude myself in a fantasy world of shallow escapism. Cheers.
I object* to being labelled "non religious" or "not believing in god". It's an entirely human concept, it's a valid as labelling everyone, non orange hat wearers or something else obtuse. The zero point on the scale should just be a person, if I hadn't been told about a god I wouldn't form an opinion therefore the control state should be exactly that. A few years ago people were classed as non-smokers, now it's heading toward just, people and smokers. Maybe this will happen with the god story.
* I don't actually object but the word serves a purpose.
I object* to being labelled "non religious" or "not believing in god".
In the confines of this discussion it does serve a purpose though doesn't it?
I think I've been called stupid (perhaps indirectly) but I get the point being made within this thread.
Is it reasonable to suppose that if there were no child-abusive indoctrination into religious dogma, humans would still imagine the actual existence "higher powers" and the like? Or would the idea be rightfully relegated to the level of fairy stories?
Has Christopher Hitchens' open question been answered on here yet?
"Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can anyone think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second question is easy to answer, is it not? The first -- I have been asking it for some time -- awaits a convincing reply."
My apologies if it has already been posted.
No. Anywhere.
Nice to see your feeling better Woptit
Is that an attempt at sarcasm? Kind of infantile, isn't it?
"you're", BTW.
... and I'm not, completely, as it goes.
So you got my gist even if I wasn’t grammatically, or you could say factually, correct.
Did you read my post using interpretation ?... Now there's a thing.
Sorry to hear you're not at full strengh... being ill is rubbish.
Take it easy... don't let 'em work you too hard and don't get wound up on here. 😀
