Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 2,251-2,300 of 12,463

[Hazel]

But cs, the celts had many gods, and goddesses too. Were they all the same god? and if so, what proof have you of that?

If they are all the same god, why are they so diverse in personality? Some are debauched, and some are evil, and some are warlike, while some are peaceful. If god has a direct hand in this world/universe, why would it allow some people to sacrifice humans in its name, while banning others from doing so? why would god have allowed the destruction of people who use one archetype by people who use another archetype, if they are all worshipping the same god? why did god not prevent all the bloodshed and suffering in its name by ensuring that everyone knew that it was one and the same god? Or does god not care? Or is god not able to? If the latter, why call it god?

[Shanna]

But God himself makes the distinction between himself and other gods
Thou shalt have no other god/s (implying there are some) before me.

[Hazel]

Shanna wrote: "But God himself make the distinction between himself and other gods
Thou shalt have no other god/s (implying there are some) before me."

this too. You do claim to worship the god as described in the bible,and he certainly made the distinction between himself and other gods.

[Shanna]

Tlaloc
Main article: Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures
Tlaloc was the god of rain. The Aztecs believed that if sacrifices weren't supplied for Tlaloc, rain wouldn't come and their crops wouldn't flourish. Leprosy and rheumatism, diseases caused by Tlaloc, would infest the village. Tlaloc required the tears of the young as part of the sacrifice. The priests made the children cry during their way to immolation: a good omen that Tlaloc would wet the earth in the raining season. In the Florentine Codex, also known as General History of the Things of New Spain, Sahagún wrote:

Is this god the same as your god?

[Hazel]

Coatlicue (I copypasta'd the description, but it was a good description, so I didn't feel the need to alter it)

Aztec goddess, appears as a woman wearing a skirt of writhing snakes and a necklace made of human hearts, hands, and skulls. Her feet and hands are adorned with claws and her breasts are depicted as hanging flaccid from nursing. Her face is formed by two facing serpents (after her head was cut off and the blood spurt forth from her neck in the form of two gigantic serpents), referring to the myth that she was sacrificed during the beginning of the present creation.

Most Aztec artistic representations of this goddess emphasize her deadly side, because Earth, as well as loving mother, is the insatiable monster that consumes everything that lives. She represents the devouring mother, in whom both the womb and the grave exist.

According to Aztec legend, she was once magically impregnated by a ball of feathers that fell on her while she was sweeping a temple, and subsequently gave birth to the gods Quetzalcoatl and Xolotl. Her daughter Coyolxauhqui then rallied Coatlicue's four hundred other children together and goaded them into attacking and decapitating their mother. The instant she was killed, the god Huitzilopochtli suddenly emerged from her womb fully grown and armed for battle. He killed many of his brothers and sisters, including Coyolxauhqui, whose head he cut off and threw into the sky to become the moon.

So, are all of these the same god as yours?

[cHriS]

Philosophy can be used as clever way of trying to checkmate someone that believes in a god. The idea of philosophy is to ask more questions that you ever give answers to.

Someone says something in a debate and rather than you come back with your own point of view you question the other persons view or belief. It's a clever trick, if the other person does not know what you are doing. It's used a lot it religious/god debates.

Fresh students who have just qualified in Philosophy and who have spent a few years being brainwashed and are now let loose on the public can't wait to practice their new doctrine. But rather than having an open mind, their mind has been closed.

just a thought :)

[Hazel]

Are you accusing us of having closed minds cs?

Our minds are open, but not to be filled with whatever someone has filled the gaps of knowledge with without evidence. Its kinda like my stomach, I won't just put any old crap into it. Asking for evidence and for proof is not the province of a closed mind, but of one that is so curious that it will not just accept an answer without exploring whether there is any truth in the answer. I will not accept "god did it", just because we don't know the answer to something yet, as there is no proof of god. Provide proof of god, to the standards I mentioned earlier, and I'll spin on a sixpence.

Now, are those descriptions we gave the same god as you worship? because if all gods have always been the same god, then by your logic, yes they are.


What philosophy do you think we're using?

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "But cs, the celts had many gods, and goddesses too. Were they all the same god? and if so, what proof have you of that?

If they are all the same god, why are they so diverse in personality? Some ..."

By not being able to give answers to those questions does not make god go away, if he exists.

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "But cs, the celts had many gods, and goddesses too. Were they all the same god? and if so, what proof have you of that?

If they are all the same god, why are they so diverse in pe..."

again, we agree, IF he exists. but there is no proof that he does. So, until there is, why assume he exists? It is not reasonable to assume existence until non-existence is proved, only to assume non-existence until existence is proved. Otherwise, you should be assuming the existence of all those other gods as seperate entities, and seperate gods to the one you worship, as you haven't proved that either a) they don't exist or b) they're the same one as you worship.

we're not asking more questions than you can give answers to, as it all comes back to the same question. Can you prove that god exists?

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "But cs, the celts had many gods, and goddesses too. Were they all the same god? and if so, what proof have you of that?

If they are all the same god, why are they so diverse in pe..."

But just saying I believe, the bible say so doesn't bring him into existence either.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "But cs, the celts had many gods, and goddesses too. Were they all the same god? and if so, what proof have you of that?

If they are all the same god, why are they so dive..."

I need an answer to questions like, 'where did we come from' and 'where do we go' and what's it all about.
I do read and am interested in science and philosophy to a degree. I have read the latest Stephen Hawkins book and he gives his theory about what happened before the big bang. Having read and listened to other theroies, and I don't disagree with them, but they are still left incomplete, leaving room for a creator.

Stephen Hawkins new theory about the Big Bang can't really be proved but he thinks/believes/says (or any other word that fits)its possible. And so do I with my belief/theory about there being a god.

[Hazel]

them being incomplete leaves gaps, yes, but that doesn't mean that gap is for a creator, as the gaps are being filled by science as we go along. Those gaps in our knowledge used ot be much bigger, and if god is in those gaps in our knowledge, that means god is getting smaller and smaller. And if the best argument you can up with is the god of the gaps, then the gaps are continuously getting smaller and smaller, and when the gaps are no more, where is god then?

You're still applying the either-or fallacy, saying that if they can't tell me with science means it must be god is completely fallacious.

Why do you need those answers? Why can't you accept "we don't know yet" as an answer, instead of filling the gap with a god for whom you have no proof?

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "Philosophy can be used as clever way of trying to checkmate someone that believes in a god. The idea of philosophy is to ask more questions that you ever give answers to.

Someone says something..."

Close mindedness is starting from an unsupported assumption (god exists) and requiring proof to disprove that position
Open minded is not having an assumption and observing and being open to new ideas if they are supported by proof.

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.

— Marcello Truzzi,

Be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out. ~Stephen A. Kallis, Jr

[Old-Barbarossa]

Hazel...are you still trying to use logic and reason while discussing with those of faith?
Still little progress I see...
And Cromm Crúaich could eat Cernunnos for breakfast...

[Hazel]

now all I can think of is Arnie's dulcet tones intoning Crom...

[Old-Barbarossa]

Hazel wrote: "now all I can think of is Arnie's dulcet tones intoning Crom..."

Whatever gets you through the night sister...

[Hazel]

I shall pray to ceiling cat to clear my head of the useless noise.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: "Tlaloc
Main article: Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures
Tlaloc was the god of rain. The Aztecs believed that if sacrifices weren't supplied for Tlaloc, rain wouldn't come and their crops wou..."

No they are false gods.

[Hazel]

How do you prove a god to be false?

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "Philosophy can be used as clever way of trying to checkmate someone that believes in a god. The idea of philosophy is to ask more questions that you ever give answers to.

Someone says ..."

That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
Albert Einstein

Surely God would not have created such a being as man, with an ability to grasp the infinite, to exist only for a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.
Abraham Lincoln

[Hazel]

Can we stop the quote war, they are calls to authority, and add nothing to either argument, as who cares what they said, it makes no difference to whether god exists or not.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "them being incomplete leaves gaps, yes, but that doesn't mean that gap is for a creator, as the gaps are being filled by science as we go along. Those gaps in our knowledge used ot be much bigger, ..."

Tell me how the gaps are being filled by science and are getting smaller.

Tell me how science has explained the thing I suggested above and how we know more now than the Victorians did.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "Can we stop the quote war, they are calls to authority, and add nothing to either argument, as who cares what they said, it makes no difference to whether god exists or not."

Good point, and stop the 'I know lots of names of gods that our ancestors used.

[Hazel]

Fine, though listing the gods names had a relevant point, and added to the argument I was making, ie that there are thousands of gods that you yourself have rejected as non-existent, so it shouldn't be that hard to understand why i reject the one you have chosen to believe in.

But please answer me, how do you prove which gods are false, and which are just Yahweh with a different name?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Philosophy can be used as clever way of trying to checkmate someone that believes in a god. The idea of philosophy is to ask more questions that you ever give answers "

and the idea of a discussion or debate is to give answers to questions....you have repeatedly refused to answer my question on whether your morality is based on fear of divine retribution so many times now it can only be deliberate.

Also, your response to the evidence presented when requested, for example on the issue of man on the moon, where you say 'a machine could have done it' suggests to me that despite your faith requiring zero evidence your demands for evidence for anything else are so high as to be unreasonable, and is similar to the "ah yes but!" responses of the conspiracy theorists.

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Tlaloc
Main article: Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures
Tlaloc was the god of rain. The Aztecs believed that if sacrifices weren't supplied for Tlaloc, rain wouldn't come an..."

But you stated that the other "gods" are the same god but with a different name. So by that argument you named yahweh false.

[[deleted user]]

Out of curiosity, what is the point of this thread?

To answer what individuals would rather live without, science or religion?

To exchange thoughts and experiences?

To take part in a thought-provoking discussion?

To prove one another wrong?

To ...?

I've not taken part in the discussion for months, but I've read the posts. Some make me think, some make me shake my head, and, lately, some have made me curious. I find myself wondering ... what is the point ...?

Just an aside ....

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Out of curiosity, what is the point of this thread?

To answer what individuals would rather live without, science or religion?

To exchange thoughts and experiences?

To take part in a thought-pro..."

For me a lot of it is an attempt to correct misconceptions about atheism. When someone posts to say 'we need religion or there'd be no morals' then that is a misconception that needs to be addressed.

[[deleted user]]

Mmmm....

I definitely think that's an unfortunate statement ... that we need religion in order to have morals. I wonder if, sometimes, people speak/write without thinking things through. Well, duh .... Everyone does that from time to time; it's a human condition, I'm afraid.

One does not have to be "religious" or a "believer" in order to be moral. Period. It's an unfortunate statement for at least three reasons. First, it's blatantly untrue. Second, I believe it, at least on some level, devalues a certain group of people ... in this case, those who do not believe in God. At the very least, it's an attempt at belittling and devaluing a group of people. Finally, while some might make that statement and consciously be attempting to demean others, I think it's, more often than not, a mistake. I'm guessing that many who say that sort of thing don't mean to put others down and say something that is so wrong and insensitive but are just repeating something they've heard throughout their lives ... not giving it any real thought at all.

[Stuart]

This very much depends on whether the question is asking which would you rather was abolished from the current world. Whilst I am very much an atheist, I believe that if religion was to somehow be abolished the world may very well take a turn for the worse given the deep-rooted brainwashing the faithful have undergone which is indelible. However, if the world could somehow be replaced as is without religion then I would be all for that as it undoubtedly is the cause of much misery and conflict. Conversely, good deeds require no such faith. Retrospectively however, the world would be extremely different if religion had never existed and many beautiful and useful creations would never have been realised. Religion is undoubtedly dying out as it no longer provides answers to the questions it purported to resolve. Science is still growing day-by-day and is yielding fantastic results that stun us with their beauty. Science will prevail over religion, simply because faith is not required for the former; everyone with senses can perceive its truth. Only madness or indoctrination can lead individuals to prefer the latter (and yes, they are almost always in contrast to one another, despite the fashion of adhering to both).

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "Tell me how the gaps are being filled by science and are getting smaller.

In that scientific method has been used to explain phenomenon previously attributed to god, so we now how they work, and that no god is required for them to work, and that the age of the earth, the universe, the stars, the sun, the moon, and how they work, as well as the fact of evolution directly contradicts the claims of the creation of the world and of the animals and plants on it as described in the bible. We know that we do not need to pray for rain for eg, that rain will happen as a result of atmospheric conditions, whether we pray or not. That sort of thing. We have explained so many phenomenon that used to be attributed to god. Because we understand them, the gap in our knowledge is smaller, because you argue that god is where we lack understanding - that is what you've been doing "Science can't explain right now, so it must be god" seems to be the basis of your argument - then it stands to reason that as we gain more understanding, the gaps in our knowledge that you are filling with god get smaller and smaller until god is no more.

Tell me how science has explained the thing I suggested above and how we know more now than the Victorians did. "

Remind me, which thing?

[Paul]

I can't be the first to know that this thread is pointless?

I can't remember who said it, but this quote seems apt:

"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."

[Hazel]

Yeah, but personally, I just enjoy the exercise in critical thinking.

[cerebus]

Paul wrote: "I can't be the first to know that this thread is pointless?

I can't remember who said it, but this quote seems apt:

"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.""
No more or no less than any online discussion. Even if the people I am disagreeing with fail to see my point, hopefully other people reading the discussion will glean something from it. If I see an objectionable comment, along the lines of 'atheists cannot possibly have morals', I can either leave the comment unchallenged, or call bullshit, and hopefully explain to people who hadn't previously thought about it why this is not the case. Too often misinformation is left unchallenged, or people just aren't forced to think for themselves.....both are bad.
Am I doing the world a great service? No. Does that mean I shouldn't care? No.

[Hazel]

Paul wrote: "I can't remember who said it, but this quote seems apt:

"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.""

http://bit.ly/wNLcu7

;P

[[deleted user]]

And ....

How do we define reason?

How do we define religious people?

Or, do we just take the quote as is ... without thought or consideration?

[Paul]

Hazel wrote: "http://bit.ly/wNLcu7

;P""

I tried that but it just comes up with a fictitious character. I'm not about to spend time researching which of the television series' writers came up with the line of dialogue or where they got it from.

As a quote it is still true.

[Paul]

Shannon wrote: "And ....

How do we define reason?

How do we define religious people?

Or, do we just take the quote as is ... without thought or consideration?"

This far into a discussion you start querying semantics? Now I know you're just poking fun at the whole thing! :)

To be fair that is the best approach. You are right, Shannon, the topic is not worthy of serious consideration, and I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[Hazel]

Paul wrote: "Hazel wrote: "http://bit.ly/wNLcu7

;P""

I tried that but it just comes up with a fictitious character. I'm not about to spend time researching which of the television series' writers came up with..."

I wasn't suggesting you do. Why is that people never get it when I insert a comic relief?

By the way, cos you made me wonder how long it would take to find out who wrote it, I checked, it was Doris Egan & Leonard Dick, who were both responsible for writing the episode that the quote comes from. It took me 30 seconds to find that out.

[[deleted user]]

Paul ...

I was actually going for something deeper than semantics.

Since the use of quotes is back in fashion, ...

Virginia Satire said, “We must not allow other people's limited perceptions to define us."

If it's wrong for believers to define non-believers as people who lack morals (...and it is wrong), is it wrong for believers to laugh over the idea that "religious people" lack reason?

Some would likely say I'm a fence sitter, given the fact that I prefer a world in which we don't have to choose, religion or science. I will make a distinct choice on this point, though. I would prefer to live in a world in which people don't fall into the old trap ... the trap of defining others.

Now, granted, I see issues with the recent discussion revolving around evidence and using the Bible as evidence (or not) for the things written within it and evidence for our having landed on the moon. The evidence we have for the latter, evidence people will have 100 years from now, including primary sources and film footage, etc... is indeed evidence for our having gone to the moon. No question about it. That evidence is an apple. Period. Comparing that type of evidence to the Bible, the Bible as evidence, is truly comparing an apple with an orange. Or, an apple with a zebra. No question.

But, does that discussion lead to the idea that all believers lack reason?

Is that the point of this thread, then? To prove that some people are stupid and others are vastly superior when it comes to intellect? Is that too harsh? Or, is the point of this thread is to prove that believers don't have scientific proof for their beliefs?

I, for one, have admitted in the past that I don't have scientific proof for my beliefs. But, hey, I believe in all sorts of things for which I don't have evidence. That's my choice, and I'm grateful that I live in a country in which I can make that choice. Even though I believe in God, without proof, and the possibility of, hmmm, intelligent life on other planets and, gosh, I don't know ..., I am capable of reason.

[Hazel]

Oh no, no, its not about proving that some people are stupider than others because of what they believe. There are some amazingly intelligent people who hold some really weird and bizarre beliefs, I've just read Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, And Other Confusions Of Our Time, and it was a really interesting read. I honestly think that people are rational and reasonable about most things, and we all hold beliefs that can be considered weird, or irrational.

I just also hold a belief that when it comes to our beliefs, we should have as many true, and as few false beliefs as possible, and as such, our beliefs need to be subject to scrutiny and investigation, and if you can't find good evidence to support a belief, then its reasonable to assume that the belief is not a worthwhile one to hold on to. Thats why I engage in these debates.

I also believe in the possibility of life on other planets, but thats based purely on the statistical unlikeliness that we are the only place in the vast universe to have had life appear. I don't however give any credence to claims that aliens have visited this planet, as the evidence simply is not good enough.

I really recommend the book I linked. Michael Shermer is great at giving a balanced view, and is a self proclaimed agnostic.

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Philosophy can be used as clever way of trying to checkmate someone that believes in a god. The idea of philosophy is to ask more questions that you ever give answers "

and the idea of ..."

No my morality is not based on fear of divine.

The man on the moon example is to show how time can confuse what is fact and what is fiction regarding documentation, wheather it be the moon walk or Jesus.

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "Shanna, we've covered that ;P"

Yeah I just realised that, and deleted my completely superfluous comment. You'll have to excuse me it's pre-coffee (or tea for me)early morning. Kids....

[Hazel]

now I deleted mine :P

Mornings are anathema to me... :D

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "now I deleted mine :P

Mornings are anathema to me... :D"

I'm better at them than I used to be, but not by choice (well I suppose ultimately it was my choice, but still)

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Tell me how the gaps are being filled by science and are getting smaller.

In that scientific method has been used to explain phenomenon previously attributed to god, so we now how they..."

If course science has explained to us how rain works and how we don't need a rain god anymore, but you know that's not what I mean. Science has hit a brick wall trying to explain what happened a split second before the big bang. Yes we now have a few theories so why can't a creator be one of those theories? It is not less logical that the theroy that there was never nothing, to try and explain how the big bang happened from nothing; and what is 'nothing'.

Can you explain to me what 'nothing' is? Because the big bang had to happen from this 'nothing'. If you subscbibe to the new theory that there has always been 'something', we are back to the problem of explaining, how could there have always been something.

Trying to explain that is just as hard as trying to explain a creator.

Also I read today that Richard Dawkins, the athiest's great leader now admits that he is agnostic. Maybe he knows something athiest's don't, or maybe he just wants to con the public with another best seller. :)

Also science has not advanced at all with regards to theories about the soul.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "And ....

How do we define reason?

How do we define religious people?

Or, do we just take the quote as is ... without thought or consideration?"

Reason is being defind here by all those who do not beleive in god. They have to have a reason for everything, or it dosen't/wouldn't/couldn/t happen.

[Mike]

cs wrote: "Shannon wrote: "And ....

How do we define reason?

How do we define religious people?

Or, do we just take the quote as is ... without thought or consideration?"

Reason is being defind he..."

I think it depends on your definition of God. If you mean a benevolent omnipotent father figure, no. If you mean an intelligence capable of originating a complex universe, I have to believe because happenstance beggars the imagination.

[Hazel]

*sigh* cs, you keep claiming that because the physicists can't explain the what came before yet that it must of been god. Thats fallacious, you're presenting only one alternative "you can't explain it so it must be god". No, that's not the case, there could be hundreds of possible explanations, some of which we simply haven't thought of yet, but no matter how many explanations we can think of and imagine, until there is proof to substantiate it, then it holds no water.

Science hasn't hit a brick wall in regards to this, the physicists are still working on it, they're close to seeing through an event horizon, thats the next step on the journey to understanding the big bang and what came before. This isn't a brick wall they have hit against, its a mountain that they're climbing.

You are filling the gaps in our species knowledge with an explanation for which you have no proof, I could easily claim that it was the easter bunny having an orgasm that created the universe, and your claim for god has as much proof as that does. If people had been teaching for generations that it was the Easter bunny having an orgasm, that would probably be what you would be arguing for now: "science can't give me the answer right this second, so it must have been the Easter bunny".

Filling the gaps with unsubstantiated claims is pointless.

Look, you can believe what you want, I don't really care, its your prerogative to believe what you chose, I only have a problem with it if people start trying to inforce their doctrines on other people, or try to create laws etc off the back of them.

But stop claiming that your beliefs are true when you cannot substantiate them with good quality evidence. I am open to whatever explanation finally presents itself (or to not knowing if they don't find out in my lifetime), including a creator, but I will not accept that explanation until it has been shown to have substantial amounts of good evidence behind it.

However, you may be interested in this, its just over an hour long, have fun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS...

Oh, and Dawkins doesn't subscribe to the idea that agnostic is a separate category to atheist and theist, as he explained int he god delusion, agnostic is a technically impossible position to hold, as you will always lean one way or the other, but he considers it to be a subgroup within those two groups. He has always called himself an agnostic atheist. This is nothing new.

[[deleted user]]

cs wrote: "Reason is being defind here by all those who do not beleive in god. They have to have a reason for everything, or it dosen't/wouldn't/couldn/t happen...."

Well .... I don't know. Now, I might actually get into semantics. ;) But, I'm not doing this for the case of semantics alone.

I think some of the people who post to this thread want evidence. They want scientific evidence in order to consider God and the ideas believers hold about God, whichever God that might be. As far as I'm concerned, that's fine. Some people need scientific evidence in order to believe ... to believe anything. Fine. Truly, for me, that's fine. I have no need or desire to convince them ... or anyone else ... that I'm right in the beliefs I hold. And ... I don't have scientific proof to offer ... nor does that concern me much.

But, then, we look at the word "reason" and have the opportunity to question (...or not) what we mean by that word.

For some people ... for some cultures, reason does not equal math and science and proof. For some American Indian cultures, for example, reason can be defined quite differently. Proof, scientific evidence, can have its place. But, they'd recognize other ways of reasoning to be equally important. A devotion to one and only one would be considered an imbalance. For me, based on my upbringing and culture, I find it important to reason in the logical way many here put forth and to reason in a more ... hmmmm ... basic, elemental, ... spiritual way. I don't know that I've described it accurately.

I think there are deep and rich conversations to be had here. The question would be ... is that the point of this thread .... Do we want to have deep and rich conversations with people who don't believe as we do? Do we want to consider other views? I mean, we can, in the end, say, "Heck, that's just not for me." But, is it important to have those conversations and attempt to view things from another person's perspective, perhaps from another culture? Is that what this is all about? Or, is it about proving one side right and another side wrong?