“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:

“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.”

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 ridiculous. allegorical

HTH

its ridiculous 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

?

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

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.

TRUE dat and allegorical really means fable or myth in this context which means WRONG

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.