[Closed] "I asked God to help me"

I think you will find our post count was pretty even, so it's a pretty even share of blame. (if there is any, I am interested in the whole field of offense/insult and thought I might learn something). I wasn't going to say anymore until you implied it was my fault we descended into a discussion that send the thread elsewhere. So don't start and I won't respond, fair enough? (BTW that did annoy me if you want to find ways of pissing me off)

Molgrips, Yes I agree entirely, but you wouldn't need to be colour blind to think it was all a conspiracy to trick you though would you?

My point is that what you are driving at is an entirely different area of thought..

You decide to abandon your beliefs becasue a few people who hold the same beliefs as you are a bit rude?

Was that not a joke?

Yes it was.

But I was [trying to] point out that.

Me saying I was Abandoning my Atheist beliefs and going to church because some Atheists behave in a way I don't like would be pretty stupid.

In fact it would almost as stupid as a Christian being convinced that there religion is somehow inherently Evil, by someone posting pictures of some idiots holding banners saying "God hates Fags"

I wasn't going to say anymore until you implied it was my fault

I didn't imply that it was your fault. Or at least, I didn't mean to. Reading back though, I can see how that could have been misrepresentative, for which I apologise.

sorry nealglover the humour went straight over my head!

Well I dunno. Those who see God all around are looking at the same things as those who see simple reality, but drawing different conclusions. It's about the interpretation of evidence, isn't it? Sensory and otherwise.

Well I dunno. Those who see God all around are looking at the same things as those who see simple reality, but drawing different conclusions. It's about the interpretation of evidence, isn't it? Sensory and otherwise.

In understand what you are trying to say but as someone above quoted Dawkins - if you see god " it's a hallucination".

Do you know about postmodernism?

molgrips - Member

Well I dunno. Those who see God all around are looking at the same things as those who see simple reality, but drawing different conclusions. It's about the interpretation of evidence, isn't it? Sensory and otherwise.

What evidence? - thats the point -there is no evidence for God at all.

What evidence? - thats the point -there is no evidence for God at all.

I got a bit of a shock this morning when I made some toast

[img] ?w=470[/img]

I knelt down and repented...........stuff like that doesn't just "happen".

You repented! My god!

Wow, Lemmy on a piece of toast.

Thats amazing

I certainly did TJ......there was a strange aura around me today at work

[img] [/img]

How would you know it wasn't all a conspiracy to trick you?

You're on the road to solipsism with that one. Is that where you want to go?

Mr Woppit - Member
The jesus religion was just one of several competing with each other in the classical world at that time - Mithraism, for instance - which all shared the same story line. Prediction/fullfillment/miracles/dying to save others/going to heaven etc etc...

The only reason the xtian fairy story gained traction, was because the Roman Emperor Constantine adopted it and enforced it as a state religion.

Nothing to do with any "god" intervention...

Woppit - now that really is interesting. So let's assume in the words of Nietzsche that, "God is Dead", and that The Bible (and other religious texts) are nice bits of literature, poems, stories, histories etc but not the word of any divine being.

Why the need for Christianity (or other religions) to be "created" by humans? How and why has it endured?. As you say, perhaps it was a reaction to the moral values of the Classical world. What do we get from the Odyssey and the Iliad? A picture of a world where the moral code was based on honour, shame and heroism in battle. And Aristotle, a founder of Virtue Ethics, arguing that slavery was a morally justifiable thing!!! So the powerless, the slaves and the weak, were envious (not surprisingly) of the powerful and they channelled their feeling towards a new moral code based on protection of the weak, kindness, generosity and guilt at wrongdoing.....and what became of this....the "Christian" virtues of looking after the weak and the helpless...reinforced by the State (perhaps?)

Fast forward a couple of Centuries and we get Nietzche's infamous prononcement and the rejection of these accepted values (and shall we say, those "adopted" by Christianity for convenience) and if some posts here are to be believed a rejection of the Church as the basis of morality (seems pretty plausible this?). What replaces it according to Nietzche...individuals could now create their own set of moral values and develop their own style of living (hmm, again sounds familiar).

And then the scary bit, the circle is completed and what replaces the old set of values...the old Classical ones, the rise of the powerful, the pain of the weak, the false heros....the nightmare in Nietzsche's time of "the master-race". So are Homer's heros who trod all over the weak now the 0.1% who control the world's wealth? Perhaps we should be careful what we wish for...!!!

If say, you are colour blind, and I tell you a green ball and a red ball are different colours, is there any way I can conclusively prove it to you?

Thats interesting I'll have to think about that for a minute.

Yes by measuring wavelength. Try again

Easier then that, write red on the red ball, green on the green ball. Give both balls to the colour blind person, so that only they can see the writing, and you can only see the ball. You close your eyes, they mix up the balls. And you can tell which one is which every single time.

Although it depends on your idea of proof - that's not a proper proof in my eyes, but it would be enough to convince a standard human. Equally you can say you have a person with perfect vision, how do you prove to them that the balls are different, when philosophically speaking, how can we ever know that any observation is really true?

If say, you are colour blind, and I tell you a green ball and a red ball are different colours, is there any way I can conclusively prove it to you?

Oi, lay of the colourblind - you'll picking on the meek next!

If say, you are colour blind, and I tell you a green ball and a red ball are different colours, is there any way I can conclusively prove it to you?

What makes you think you've got it right?

What evidence? - thats the point -there is no evidence for God at all.

“I am walking proof of the power of prayer. For 78 minutes I was dead and even if I lived was expected to have suffered brain damage.
“But I’m very much alive and sitting here talking now. Someone up there was watching over me. On the morning of the game I prayed with my father and asked God to protect me — and he didn’t let me down.”

Easier then that, write red on the red ball, green on the green ball. Give both balls to the colour blind person, so that only they can see the writing, and you can only see the ball. You close your eyes, they mix up the balls. And you can tell which one is which every single time.

What about if the balls were on a conveyor belt?

Why the need for Christianity (or other religions) to be "created" by humans?

Power and control of the masses?

How and why has it endured?

Primarily, religious parents raise religious children. Also, some religions have more insidious laws to ensure its survival; the death penalty for apostasy for example.

Power and control of the masses?

That doesn't add up there is evidence of religion from 40,000 years ago and I don't think there were masses then.

And then the scary bit, the circle is completed and what replaces the old set of values...the old Classical ones, the rise of the powerful, the pain of the weak, the false heros....the nightmare in Nietzsche's time of "the master-race". So are Homer's heros who trod all over the weak now the 0.1% who control the world's wealth? Perhaps we should be careful what we wish for...!!!

Right - so once again we have it - morality can only come from Christianity. its Christianity or Nazism there is no other answer.

😆 🙄

Also, some religions have more insidious laws to ensure its survival; the death penalty for apostasy for example.

Until a few hundred years ago the catholic church regularly burned people for heresy. I sometimes think its more important to rememeber the heretics than those who died in ww2.

How and why has it endured?

People are afraid of death.

On the contrary TJ - that whole line of argument rejects Christianity as anything other than an outcome of the rejection of the moral values of the classical world. Pretty much what Woppit was arguing.

Nazism - now that's interesting again. The Nazi's obviously used Nietszche's ideas. But arguably that was due to his anti-semitic sister who (in fine STW tradition) was (apparently) a master of selected editing (when he lost his sanity) rather than him. Far too simplistic to equate the two N's.

But his ideas and rejection of Christianity were both exciting and challenging at the same time depending on your perspective. Exciting in that you did not need (indeed you had to reject official) religions as the basis of morality but frightening in his conclusions....the Ubermensch (which he based in Darwinism). Life is full of these funny coincidences but never black and white!!

On the contrary TJ - that whole line of argument rejects Christianity as anything other than an outcome of the rejection of the moral values of the classical world. Pretty much what Woppit was arguing.

Nazism - now that's interesting again. The Nazi's obviously used Nietszche's ideas. But arguably that was due to his anti-semitic sister who (in fine STW tradition) was (apparently) a master of selected editing (when he lost his sanity) rather than him. Far too simplistic to equate the two N's.

But his ideas and rejection of Christianity were both exciting and challenging at the same time depending on your perspective. Exciting in that you did not need (indeed you had to reject official) religions as the basis of morality but frightening in his conclusions....the Ubermensch (which he based in Darwinism). Life is full of these funny coincidences but never black and white!!

But this is the critical analysis branch of sociology isn't it, which frankly has as much validity as God in my eyes..

What evidence? - thats the point -there is no evidence for God at all.

Says you. A lot of people disagree. But wait, let me guess - they're all wrong, aren't they? 😆

philosophically speaking, how can we ever know that any observation is really true?

That's what I am getting at. Simplistic, of course, but it nicely allows religion to exist, intellectually speaking, doens't it?

Says you. A lot of people disagree. But wait, let me guess - they're all wrong, aren't they?

Please present us with some of this evidence that these people who disagree will have?

molgrips you are a scientist and you know there is no objective empirical evidence for god. It is not a point to be ignored it s critical - even they accept this hence faith and what it means to them.

People swear by horoscopes, homoeopathy, and the power of prayer it does not mean they are real. It is not just 2says" you " which is rather simplistic [ playground level almost] as a reply.

philosophically speaking, how can we ever know that any observation is really true

That's what I am getting at. Simplistic, of course, but it nicely allows religion to exist, intellectually speaking, doens't it?

In truth, we can't know for sure either way. However with there being simply infinite possibilites, our chances of believing the right one are 0. So might as well just forget it all and have fun.

Please present us with some of this evidence that these people who disagree will have?

How am I supposed to do that? I'm not one of them!

molgrips you are a scientist and you know there is no objective empirical evidence for god.

I am not aware of any evidence, no.

But yet again, let me re-iterate my point:

[b]Choosing to believe does not necessarily mean you are stupid.[/b]

that's not a proper proof[B] in my eyes,[/b] but it would be enough to convince a [b]standard human[/b].

I'm somewhat perplexed by this statement.

Am I to presume you are some kind of "non standard" build ?

molgrips - Member

"What evidence? - thats the point -there is no evidence for God at all".

Says you. A lot of people disagree. But wait, let me guess - they're all wrong, aren't they?

Really - what is this evidence then. I have had this debate a fair bit over the years and I have been offered the bible and flowers as evidence of gods existance. got anything a bit better to offer?

Well I would be convinced by it, but it wouldn't really have proved it to me. Just like I'm convinced by evolution - but they haven't been proved.

got anything a bit better to offer?

That there is something instead of nothing? The big bang comes from some kinda mumbo jumbo in a quantum vacuum or something, so even when there was nothing (before the big bang) there were rules. Where did these rules come from?

(If you can't tell, I'm not in any way a physicist, and only have a vague understanding of this stuff.)

double post

As you say, perhaps it was a reaction to the moral values of the Classical world. What do we get from the Odyssey and the Iliad? A picture of a world where the moral code was based on honour, shame and heroism in battle. And Aristotle, a founder of Virtue Ethics, arguing that slavery was a morally justifiable thing!!! So the powerless, the slaves and the weak, were envious (not surprisingly) of the powerful and they channelled their feeling towards a new moral code based on protection of the weak, kindness, generosity and guilt at wrongdoing.....and what became of this....the "Christian" virtues of looking after the weak and the helpless...reinforced by the State (perhaps?)

There is plenty of slavery in the Bible and it endured for nearly 1900 years after the supposed death of JC so that is bobbins.

edit: answered question myself

Really - what is this evidence then

Don't ask me. I'm not a Christian.

See my previous post.

Choosing to believe does not necessarily mean you are stupid.

Assuming we have free will but thats a whole other kettle of coconuts

There is plenty of slavery in the Bible and it endured for nearly 1900 years after the supposed death of JC so that is bobbins.

TBH that whole post was utter bobbins not just the bit you identified.

[url= http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html ]All complete idiots[/url] and nowhere near as clued up as some of the posters on here.

“This sublime system is necessary to man.
It is the sacred tie that binds society,
The first foundation of holy equity,
The bridle to the wicked, the hope of the just.
If the heavens, stripped of his noble imprint,
Could ever cease to attest to his being,
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
Let the wise man announce him and kings fear him.”
"Voltaire"

And what these threads tend to degenerate into

[url=www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-IixtxKETU]Nag,Nag,Nag[/url]

What's your point caller?

God-Ontological reasons for...

No.2-The idea of God exists in the mind

God-Ontological reasons for...

What about them?

No.2-The idea of God exists in the mind

Not sure where else ideas can exist. Do you mean god only exists in the mind?

All complete idiots and nowhere near as clued up as some of the posters on here.

It's worth noting that religion was different in those days. It was what you did, in public at least.