drugs and prostitution

[ERICOPOLY]

And, who knows, perhaps God did intervene in WWII. We aren't all speaking German.

 

The conclusion of the war was arrived at when the Allies began targeting women and children directly.  They became the primary targets.  Killed by the hundreds of thousands.  On purpose. 

 

Bin Laden did that to a few thousand, and it was called... terrorism.

[Guest]

I like how you manage to turn this thread into a discussion about the motives and sincerity of Richard Dawkins. Is that relevant for the discussion? I'd say it is a case of "shoot the messenger". I don't think God would approve of these ad hominem attacks. "Turn the other cheek", remember?

 

Nah, the point isn't necessarily about Dawkins, more about a person's motives. "People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." ;)

 

Yet YOU don't know what is happening in somebodies heart but you are first in line to judge that Richard Dawkins' heart is less admirable than that of a mother you've never met. If the point is not about Dawkins you shouldn't bring him up in the discussion .. You're just throwing mud at people you don't agree with.

 

Unfortunately we're drifting even more off-topic (as far as that's possible :) ). I'm interested to know what you think of the 'turtle' problem as brought up by Richard Gibbons. Why are God's morals less arbitrary than ours? What's the difference between your morals and those of the guys in Iraq killing children?

 

Well, I think most of us can say that if someone is trying to "help" another person that is better than ridiculing them. And let's be real, mocking someone is not trying to help them.

 

I would say that God's morals are less arbitrary than ours because, if he exists, he is bigger than us. If God's character is good morals, they aren't arbitrary. They are his being.

 

I would say if atheism is accurate, there is no difference in my morals or the guys in Iraq.

[Liberty]

And, who knows, perhaps God did intervene in WWII. We aren't all speaking German.

 

The conclusion of the war was arrived at when the Allies began targeting women and children directly.  They became the primary targets.  Killed by the hundreds of thousands.  On purpose. 

 

Bin Laden did that to a few thousand, and it was called... terrorism.

 

You'd think that if an omniscient and omnipotent being wanted to intervene, it wouldn't be after tens of millions of deaths.. But hey, as long as we're making stuff up without any evidence, who's counting?

 

Reminds me of the Epicurus line:

 

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

[writser]

I would say that God's morals are less arbitrary than ours because, if he exists, he is bigger than us.

Awesome reasoning. God's morals are better because he is bigger. I guess I should listen to Michael Jordan from now. You also still haven't explained adequately how, even if God's morals are right, you know what morals are right.

 

If God's character is good morals, they aren't arbitrary. They are his being.

If Writser's character is good morals, they aren't arbitrary. They are his being. So. Cool. I believe I have now proven that my set of morals aren't arbitrary, by your reasoning. Obey me! Really, I have no clue what you mean here. Morals are 'his being'? Is that even English?

 

All vagueries and generic statements that can be twisted and interpreted in any way as you see fit to make your point.

[Guest]

stahley, I have a question for you.

 

Let's pick a few random names here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities

 

Let's say:

 

Zeus, Odin, and Hachiman.

 

I'm guessing you don't believe in these gods.

 

Can you tell us why please?

 

Keep in mind I never claimed to be Christian (I really can't say that I am) but here is something kind of odd.

 

If we look at odds, what are the odds that the two world's religions have a pretty big association with a poor carpenter in the middle east (Christianity and Islam)? Sure, that isn't proof that something happened there, but I do find it odd that so much of the world is associated with this one poor, random guy in the middle of nowhere if there's not something more to it.

 

Further, there is a good amount of historical evidence that Jesus existed, much more so than any of the other deities. If you're really interested, I grab some resources.

 

This whole idea of religion isn't something I'm super comfortable with yet. Honestly, guys, if I had a choice, I'd rather you guys be right and the theists wrong. But, as I deep dived into this stuff, I really started to question my agnosticism.

[Liberty]

So you basically think these things might be true because they are widespread?

 

You do know they became popular over centuries by military conquest, threat of force, and the indoctrination of children, right? Not exactly because of convincing arguments (where are those arguments? I'm still waiting for them)..

 

I really wish you had answered my question, though. Unless you do believe in Zeus, Odin, and Hachiman, in which case I'm still asking "why?".

[writser]

If we look at odds, what are the odds that the two world's religions have a pretty big association with a poor carpenter in the middle east (Christianity and Islam)? Sure, that isn't proof that something happened there, but I do find it odd that so much of the world is associated with this one poor, random guy in the middle of nowhere if there's not something more to it.

What are the odds that a couple of finches exist on the Galapagos islands that look exactly similar but all have different beaks? What are the odds that in the US kids believe in Santa Claus and in the Netherlands kids believe in Sinterklaas? Answer: it is quite likely because they all evolved from common ancestors. Maybe the same thing holds for religions?

 

Further, there is a good amount of historical evidence that Jesus existed, much more so than any of the other deities. If you're really interested, I grab some resources.

Nobody here ever denied that Jesus existed. The logical error you make here is: Jesus existed & people say he is a deity -> Jesus was a deity. I exist as well. If I say I'm god, does that make me supernatural? Answer: unfortunately not.

 

@Liberty: I have a few explanations for you. First one: obviously these were all manifestations of the same 'deity' that happens to be the Christian god, misinterpreted by primitive humans. Or: these were fake gods created by the real god to test our belief in him. Or: the earth is only 2000 years old, the Greeks and Germanics never existed and all these stories were made up by infidels who will burn in hell for eternity. Or: our god is the only real one because the bible says so and the bible was written by my god. Or: I feel that my god is the real one. I'll let Stahley pick the right explanation.

 

Honestly, guys, if I had a choice, I'd rather you guys be right and the theists wrong. But, as I deep dived into this stuff, I really started to question my agnosticism.

Another classic way to convince people. "Really, I wish you were right but I know much more about this stuff than you and you're WRONG!". Argumentum ad factum.

[writser]

By the way, I'm spending too much time in this thread. Google ads is now displaying attractive 'Muslim girls for marriage' when browsing this forum.

[ukvalueinvestment]

Mine still displays:

 

"Invest in UK Student Property!  9% net returns GUARANTEED for five years!"

 

Anyone want to hazard a guess what happens at year 5?

[Dustin T]

stahley, I have a question for you.

 

Let's pick a few random names here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities

 

Let's say:

 

Zeus, Odin, and Hachiman.

 

I'm guessing you don't believe in these gods.

 

Can you tell us why please?

 

Keep in mind I never claimed to be Christian (I really can't say that I am) but here is something kind of odd.

 

If we look at odds, what are the odds that the two world's religions have a pretty big association with a poor carpenter in the middle east (Christianity and Islam)? Sure, that isn't proof that something happened there, but I do find it odd that so much of the world is associated with this one poor, random guy in the middle of nowhere if there's not something more to it.

 

Further, there is a good amount of historical evidence that Jesus existed, much more so than any of the other deities. If you're really interested, I grab some resources.

 

This whole idea of religion isn't something I'm super comfortable with yet. Honestly, guys, if I had a choice, I'd rather you guys be right and the theists wrong. But, as I deep dived into this stuff, I really started to question my agnosticism.

 

I'm probably not too far from stahleyp, I'm nominally a Christian but I'm much more of a Deist.

 

I like the poster earlier felt much the same at 10. That it all seemed like nonsense and didn't believe in much of anything.

 

The thing that will always be there, though is this. This existence is fantastic and ridiculous, the fact that a universe poofed into existence out of the void. That energy, matter, and time all sprung into existence makes in my mind anything possible.

 

Here we are in the year 2014 and we aren't that far from being able to create artificial intelligence and quite possibly before a few generations are though we may be able to create life itself.

 

If mankind that is way more full of Homer Simpsons then it is Albert Einstein's can do so much. How could we ever know for certain that we were the first to be able to do so and hence aren't ourselves the product of an intelligent species that came before us?

 

I think many of you are much more interested in tilting against a fundamentalist straw man, and maybe that straw man needs it. I just can't figure out how you are so certain that we weren't preceded by something both more ancient and intelligent then ourselves and that something beyond mere chance couldn't have had a hand in our creation?

[Liberty]

I'm not certain, I just need evidence to change my mind. I haven't found it so far. But if I find something convincing, I'll update. Belief should be based on what is most probabilistically likely to be true based on evidence, not on faith. Faith is the mind killer.

 

So far, what I'm seeing is consistent with a world without magic/the supernatural.

 

The reason why I don't find the argument "The universe is so weird, hence anything is possible" convincing is twofold. First, the universe isn't weird. The weirdness is in our minds. By that I mean, the universe is exactly as it is, it's our map of the territory that is incomplete, or it doesn't match how our intuition tells us things should work because we have evolved in a certain environment and we aren't equipped with intuition to understand things outside of that environment (the very big -- relativistic physics -- or the very small -- quantum mechanics -- or more than 3 dimensions -- but we're pretty good at understanding middle world, the scale at which we operate). A lot of things used to be great mysteries, but now we understand them (the sun and rainfall used to mystify people if you go back enough!). Secondly, whether a lot of things are possible or not doesn't point in a specific direction. Only evidence can point you one way over another. Without evidence, how can you decide which thing it is? Why not polytheism over monotheism? Why not an evil god over a benevolent one? Why not an interventionist god over a non-interventionist one? Why not a divine teapot orbiting pluto? Why not invisible dragons? Midichlorians? You can't say "anything is possible hence my own personal conception of the supernatural must be true". Where did you get that conception in the first place (go up the whole chain to the original source), and how do you know it isn't just made up?

 

Hence evidence.

 

Still waiting for evidence. In the meantime, we have a lot of evidence for a mechanistic world from physics, biology, cosmology, neuroscience, etc. There are lots of gaps in our knowledge, but gaps are just that -- stuff we don't know yet -- there's no reason to postulate a "god hiding in the gaps" anymore than we've found a god in yesterday's gaps that have since been filled.

[Dustin T]

Everything you said makes total sense to me Liberty and it's a logical point of view. I don't disagree with much that you said even if I come to a different conclusion. The only thing I will say is that none of us truly know anything about how this time and space came into being. We are all equally ignorant. We have our own ideas of what we think is the likely cause, even if that idea is it just happened.

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

Dolly the Sheep has a unique perspective on creationism.

 

[Liberty]

Dolly the Sheep has a unique perspective on creationism.

 

Dolly's a clone. Identical twins are clones too.

 

I'd say that dogs have a more interesting take on it; humans took over natural selection and bred them from wolves for various purposes, selecting the traits they liked. They've been modified a lot more than Dolly, which is identical to the sheep she was cloned from, like a twin.

[ERICOPOLY]

Dolly the Sheep has a unique perspective on creationism.

 

Dolly's a clone. Identical twins are clones too.

 

Some DNA edits and we'll perhaps have a new species.  This new species will then have a creator.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/health/a-powerful-new-way-to-edit-dna.html?_r=0

 

Then there will be evidence of God -- the new creator will be God, even if none exists today.

 

 

[Liberty]

Some DNA edits and we'll perhaps have a new species.  This new species will then have a creator.

 

We've already created a bunch of new species and edited DNA. We're creators of a lot of the species on Earth.

 

That's what the breeding of plants and animals is. You don't need a DNA sequencer - though that helps a lot - you just have to select for certain traits at the macro scale in offsprings and then breed those again and again, each time selecting for the desired traits. Originally an ear of corn was probably less than an inch long, but if you seed your corn from the biggest ears of corns you can find over and over again, over time you only have big ears of corns. Then if you cross breed some species, you get brand new species. All the different species of dogs all come from common wolf ancestors, but they've been selected for different things (hunting, cuteness, watching sheep, war, speed). That's why cats can be so damn cute; they've been selected by humans primarily for cuteness and catching small vermin (cuteness wouldn't help them survive in nature, but it helps them survive with humans). Domesticated horses were selected for being tame with humans, unlike wild zebras which are dangerous as hell.

 

If the next step interests you, check out synthetic biology:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology

 

Some are even talking about creating life forms that don't use the DNA code shared by the rest of life on earth (pointing to a common ancestor, btw) but a brand new code (not TAGC).

 

Craig Venter has been working on this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter#Synthetic_genomics

[ERICOPOLY]

Some are even talking about creating life forms that don't use the DNA code shared by the rest of life on earth (pointing to a common ancestor, btw) but a brand new code (not TAGC).

 

Craig Venter has been working on this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter#Synthetic_genomics

 

That's awesome!  So it is scientifically possible for a God to exist.  Now then, we just need to work on what created God.

[Guest]

So you basically think these things might be true because they are widespread?

 

You do know they became popular over centuries by military conquest, threat of force, and the indoctrination of children, right? Not exactly because of convincing arguments (where are those arguments? I'm still waiting for them)..

 

I really wish you had answered my question, though. Unless you do believe in Zeus, Odin, and Hachiman, in which case I'm still asking "why?".

 

No, I'm not saying it confirms the truth but I do think it  increases the odds. For instance, what are the odds that two of the world's major religions would have some random, poor carpenter as a big pieces of them?

 

Is your question as to Jesus vs the other deities? Well, here's why:

 

Jesus or his disciples are mentioned by several ancient authors. One of the better resources I've found is a book called Cold-Case Christianity. Some of the ancient ones include: Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, etc. Further, we must ask ourselves, why would the disciples die for something they know isn't true? All they had to do is is recant their beliefs and they wouldn't have died. They didn't. You also have non original disciples like Paul, who persecuted the Christians to actually becoming one. Look at the gospels. The first people to see Jesus, after the resurrection, were women. If they were "making this stuff up" the writers wouldn't have had women be the first to see - they weren't considered trustworthy. Sure we could say this group was crazy. We could say they lied, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't know of too many crazy ideas that have stayed around for 2000 years.

 

Or, I don't recall finding things like this from other deity stories either:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9333052/Scientists-find-new-evidence-supporting-John-the-Baptist-bones-theory.html

 

Sure, it could be someone else...or not.

[Liberty]

That's awesome!  So it is scientifically possible for a God to exist.  Now then, we just need to work on what created God.

 

If you define "god" as "someone who can write genetic code", then yes. If you define "god" the way most people usually define it, then no.

[ERICOPOLY]

No, I'm not saying it confirms the truth but I do think it  increases the odds. For instance, what are the odds that two of the world's major religions would have some random, poor carpenter as a big pieces of them?

 

There is a "network effect" element to it.  Or perhaps that's the wrong term... anyways.  rather, something more like "social proof".

 

For example, your belief is apparently reinforced by the occurrence of Jesus in two major religions.  Were these to be minor religions, you would not be impressed.  Thus, it's like a snowball that gets more impressive as it grows membership.

[Guest]

No, I'm not saying it confirms the truth but I do think it  increases the odds. For instance, what are the odds that two of the world's major religions would have some random, poor carpenter as a big pieces of them?

 

There is a "network effect" element to it.  Or perhaps that's the wrong term... anyways.

 

For example, your belief is apparently reinforced by the occurrence of Jesus in two major religions.  Were these to be minor religions, you would not be impressed.  Thus, it's like a snowball that gets more impressive as it grows membership.

 

Well, I'd counter that to say if God wasn't at work, the religions would stay relatively small. After all, if God is gonna interact in someway, chances are the results are gonna be pretty large. :P

[ERICOPOLY]

No, I'm not saying it confirms the truth but I do think it  increases the odds. For instance, what are the odds that two of the world's major religions would have some random, poor carpenter as a big pieces of them?

 

There is a "network effect" element to it.  Or perhaps that's the wrong term... anyways.

 

For example, your belief is apparently reinforced by the occurrence of Jesus in two major religions.  Were these to be minor religions, you would not be impressed.  Thus, it's like a snowball that gets more impressive as it grows membership.

 

Well, I'd counter that to say if God wasn't at work, the religions would stay relatively small. After all, if God is gonna interact in someway, chances are the results are gonna be pretty large. :P

 

Then why the need to send armies of people to the doorsteps of our private homes to recruit us?

 

How about the major religions instituting a self-imposed ban on proselytizing?  See how that works out for the theory that they grow due to the greatness of God.

 

It feels more like they grow due to an army of door-to-door salesmen.

 

[Liberty]

No, I'm not saying it confirms the truth but I do think it  increases the odds. For instance, what are the odds that two of the world's major religions would have some random, poor carpenter as a big pieces of them?

 

Is your question as to Jesus vs the other deities? Well, here's why:

 

Jesus or his disciples are mentioned by several ancient authors. One of the better resources I've found is a book called Cold-Case Christianity. Some of the ancient ones include: Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, etc. Further, one must ask ourselves, why would the disciples die for something they know isn't true? All they had to do is is recant their beliefs and they would have died. They didn't. You also have non original disciples like Paul, who persecuted the Christians to actually becoming one. Look at the gospels. The first people to see Jesus, after the resurrection, were woman. If they were "making this stuff up" the writers wouldn't have had women be the first to see - they weren't considered trust worthy. Sure we could say this group was crazy. We could say they lied, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't know of too many crazy ideas that have stayed around for 2000 years.

 

Or, I don't recall finding things like this from other deity stories either:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9333052/Scientists-find-new-evidence-supporting-John-the-Baptist-bones-theory.html

 

Sure, it could be someone else...or not.

 

It's not random, it's like the anthropic principle, if things had turned out otherwise we might be talking about the prophet Mustafa or Roland or whatever. But that doesn't make it magical. Prophets are a dime a dozen. Out of all of them, most were forgotten and a few became very popular (through wars and indoctrination of illiterate people and children - for the longest time priests didn't even talk in a language that their audience understood). You can see how religions are created in real-time today by looking at the Mormon church and other sects, or even with how splintered christianity is. Don't you find it weird that UFO and paranormal sightings went down a lot since everybody has a camera in their pocket? Do you think that if 2000 years ago we had cameras and literate people who didn't believe in all kinds of crazy stuff that things would have turned out otherwise? Go ask a remote tribe of illiterate people never exposed to science what kind of stuff they believe in... Why don't we have blood raining from the sky and people being resurrected (like Lazarus, which apparently was no big deal) these days?

 

Anyway, if that kind of very weak sauce convinces you ("I don't know of too many crazy ideas that have stayed around for 2000 years." Really?), nothing I can ever write will have any impact, so I might as well stop here. Next we'll be arguing over thousands-of-years old supposed eye-witness accounts of raining frogs, Noah's ark, and Jesus walking on water... Finding a dude's bones doesn't mean anything. We could have a box full of selfies of Jesus, and that wouldn't make him a deity.

 

I'll leave you with a really fun read:

 

http://www.evilbible.com/

 

A compilation of all the evil things in the bible (rape, human sacrifice, slavery, lies, murder, genocide, sexism, infanticide, wars, etc), most committed by or under direct orders from god. Makes me scared when someone says they get their morality from there (but if they can pick & choose, doesn't it mean that they really get their morality from somewhere else? Maybe a place accessible to non-believers? oh boy).

[ERICOPOLY]

and Jesus walking on water...

 

There's a great Mythbusters on that topic:

 

 

 

[Guest]

No, I'm not saying it confirms the truth but I do think it  increases the odds. For instance, what are the odds that two of the world's major religions would have some random, poor carpenter as a big pieces of them?

 

There is a "network effect" element to it.  Or perhaps that's the wrong term... anyways.

 

For example, your belief is apparently reinforced by the occurrence of Jesus in two major religions.  Were these to be minor religions, you would not be impressed.  Thus, it's like a snowball that gets more impressive as it grows membership.

 

Well, I'd counter that to say if God wasn't at work, the religions would stay relatively small. After all, if God is gonna interact in someway, chances are the results are gonna be pretty large. :P

 

Then why the need to send armies of people to the doorsteps of our private homes to recruit us?

 

How about the major religions instituting a self-imposed ban on proselytizing?  See how that works out for the theory that they grow due to the greatness of God.

 

It feels more like they grow due to an army of door-to-door salesmen.

 

If I had to guess, it's more of a maturing process. By sharing the faith, it helps with human bonding. If He does everything automatically, not a whole lot of learning would be done.