Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
mcdjl said:
I didn't quite see where that was going. Perhaps I should have said no they don't require evidence, they just get it at some point after their death when they either arrive at the pearly gates (other options may exist) or ummm, well, don't.
If they are wrong of course then they don't receive evidence because they have ceased to be and are thus incapable of receiving anything much, consciously.Derek Smith said:
An old school friend, some 50 years after I last saw him, contacted me through Facebook and asked if I wanted to meet him. We got on fairly well from what I can remember and so I agreed to a meet in Costa. I didn't read the gubbins at the bottom of his email. Big mistake.
He started chatting about his failures in life: divorce x 2, estranged children and a short time spent inside for errors that were not his fault. I was beginning to regret meeting up. Then he came out with the 'then I found Jesus'. By that time I'd decided to cut a run and as I got up from the table he grabbed my arm and said something like he could help me find my way, general rubbish. I then said: 'Oh, christ, I don't want to know.'
He then said that I should not take the lord god's name in vain.
I pointed out that Jesus was not the lord god and that in any case christ was a title and not a name. Bad thing to say evidently. We were asked to leave, due to his shouting, and I apologised but a woman on an adjacent table came to my defence, saying that I'd been quite polite and it was 'the small man' who caused all the aggro. He then had a go at her.
I left.
So what about:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/oliver-bu...
I can empathise with that, I mean your friend, does he get atheists knocking on his door telling him not to believe in god?He started chatting about his failures in life: divorce x 2, estranged children and a short time spent inside for errors that were not his fault. I was beginning to regret meeting up. Then he came out with the 'then I found Jesus'. By that time I'd decided to cut a run and as I got up from the table he grabbed my arm and said something like he could help me find my way, general rubbish. I then said: 'Oh, christ, I don't want to know.'
He then said that I should not take the lord god's name in vain.
I pointed out that Jesus was not the lord god and that in any case christ was a title and not a name. Bad thing to say evidently. We were asked to leave, due to his shouting, and I apologised but a woman on an adjacent table came to my defence, saying that I'd been quite polite and it was 'the small man' who caused all the aggro. He then had a go at her.
I left.
So what about:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/oliver-bu...
Moonhawk said:
i'd much rather stand at the pearly gates in front of whichever god turns out to be the correct one and argue that I used the intelligence that was gifted to me to make an informed decision based on available evidence - rather than say "I just rolled the dice" or "I just went with the religion of my parents".
And would you not have to courage to stand there and state 'you know what... you are f
king st at this god business... give me your job and I'll show you how it should be done'.Ergo - no god. (someone would have got there before you and fixed it already).
mcdjl said:
I didn't quite see where that was going. Perhaps I should have said no they don't require evidence, they just get it at some point after their death when they either arrive at the pearly gates (other options may exist) or ummm, well, don't.
The problem is that we don't know whether they do or don't require that evidence (or at least the promise of it). All religions promise an afterlife of sorts, that all your questions will be answered, you'll reach enlightenment, you'll meet thy maker and live for eternity in a land of milk and honey etc etc (for those that toe the line at least). I wonder if so many people would be drawn to religion without the promise of this evidence - if the religions basically said "you know what - we don't know what happens".
Moonhawk said:
mcdjl said:
I didn't quite see where that was going. Perhaps I should have said no they don't require evidence, they just get it at some point after their death when they either arrive at the pearly gates (other options may exist) or ummm, well, don't.
The problem is that we don't know whether they do or don't require that evidence (or at least the promise of it). All religions promise an afterlife of sorts, that all your questions will be answered, you'll reach enlightenment, you'll meet thy maker and live for eternity in a land of milk and honey etc etc (for those that toe the line at least). I wonder if so many people would be drawn to religion without the promise of this evidence - if the religions basically said "you know what - we don't know what happens".
Now a days I'd say that many people in the western world certainly don't treat religion as a completely strict believe everything in the book set of rules. A few centuries ago the promise of an afterlife was very useful in getting your canon fodder (sword/arrow/stones etc) in line to do your bidding. In fact 72 virgins clearly still is. In the less dogmatic the promise of an afterlife certainly helps some i doubt many/any could tell you what they actually expect it to be though- I doubt many actually want the milk and honey, that sounds a bit hellish to me.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Live and let live is fine in principle.To get right back to the original post - this was to discuss the significance of science (potentially) explaining the origin of life, and whether the potential closure of such a 'gap' would be a landmark discovery from a theological perspective.
What has been demonstrated is that many religionists have shown no indication whatsoever of such a discovery having any possible impact on their belief. Some have suggested that no evidence could ever dent their belief, "there will always be something we won't know or be able to explain", which was quite an interesting view (or excuse?) for belief when you think about it. Some have however quickly dismissed or derided the theory (or hypothesis), perhaps as it maybe was a bit threatening to their belief? Either way it seems evident that there is some closed minded thinking going on when considering the potential relevance of the discovery.
I have to say if someone showed me direct evidence of a god or a divine intervention I like to think I would start believing. But it has never happened - ever - so there is no positive evidence for such a thing whatsoever. This, unless shown otherwise, is quite compelling evidence for me - together with all the other obvious signs - that it is all just made up by man. But, crucially, I think if you showed me contrary proof I would change my assessment.
///ajd said:
I have to say if someone showed me direct evidence of a god or a divine intervention I like to think I would start believing. But it has never happened - ever - so there is no positive evidence for such a thing whatsoever. This, unless shown otherwise, is quite compelling evidence for me - together with all the other obvious signs - that it is all just made up by man. But, crucially, I think if you showed me contrary proof I would change my assessment.
The real killer for me is that god supposedly openly communicated with man in the past - performed feats that couldn't be explained by anything other than divine influence. Then all of a sudden he goes quiet and no longer directly interferes - or at least not in any measurable way.If god was quite happy to verify his existence to man in the past - why the change of heart. Why do we now have to take in on faith when he was quite happy to reveal himself in the past.
It all seems rather too convenient (and all too human). If I was going to design a religion from scratch, a religion that I wanted people to follow without question - they are the kind of unverifiable properties I would give my deity.
ash73 said:
Moonhawk said:
If i'm wrong - i'd much rather stand at the pearly gates in front of whichever god turns out to be the correct one and argue that I used the intelligence that was gifted to me to make an informed decision based on available evidence
What are you hoping to achieve at the pearly gates by doing that? I think the basic idea is to live a perfect life and make the right choices, not apologise for an imperfect one after the fact. You could say it was the right choice, but it's a moot point once you are standing there.I think the point is he doesn't really expect to find himself at the pearly gates
It might matter more how you lived your life and treated other people. I would expect to be judged on that not my beliefs; something people on both sides might do well to consider.
Of course how you live and treat people matters above all else. Both sides do consider that - it is perhaps a bit patronising to imply the "other" side do not that do that already, which it seems is an accusation you maybe hurling at atheists. Q: do you think your God will congratulate you if you have gone through life looking down on homosexuals and treating them as second class citizens? Treating everyone as equals is certainly something both sides might do well to consider.
Hawkish comments on little details in the bible are pointless, I think it's more interesting to look at the core tenets. As I understand it, it's basically about repairing man's relationship with God. I think it's reasonable to hypothesise God exists (see Godel), and it's possible we are the only intelligent life out there; seems very unlikely but if so we may have a special relationship with God. Ergo find intelligent life elsewhere, and religion is fundamentally broken.
Really? Just intelligent life elsewhere would break religion? I find this surprising, given that all the other evidence that suggests there is no God appears to have no impact on belief.
It's worth funding a space programme just to settle the argument
///ajd said:
ash73 said:
Moonhawk said:
If i'm wrong - i'd much rather stand at the pearly gates in front of whichever god turns out to be the correct one and argue that I used the intelligence that was gifted to me to make an informed decision based on available evidence
What are you hoping to achieve at the pearly gates by doing that? I think the basic idea is to live a perfect life and make the right choices, not apologise for an imperfect one after the fact. You could say it was the right choice, but it's a moot point once you are standing there.I think the point is he doesn't really expect to find himself at the pearly gates
It might matter more how you lived your life and treated other people. I would expect to be judged on that not my beliefs; something people on both sides might do well to consider.
Of course how you live and treat people matters above all else. Both sides do consider that - it is perhaps a bit patronising to imply the "other" side do not that do that already, which it seems is an accusation you maybe hurling at atheists. Q: do you think your God will congratulate you if you have gone through life looking down on homosexuals and treating them as second class citizens? Treating everyone as equals is certainly something both sides might do well to consider.
Hawkish comments on little details in the bible are pointless, I think it's more interesting to look at the core tenets. As I understand it, it's basically about repairing man's relationship with God. I think it's reasonable to hypothesise God exists (see Godel), and it's possible we are the only intelligent life out there; seems very unlikely but if so we may have a special relationship with God. Ergo find intelligent life elsewhere, and religion is fundamentally broken.
Really? Just intelligent life elsewhere would break religion? I find this surprising, given that all the other evidence that suggests there is no God appears to have no impact on belief.
It's worth funding a space programme just to settle the argument
Alpinestars said:
Sounds no more or less believable than God. Coulda, woulda, shoulda theories.
they are all coulda woulda shoulda. I love watching Ancient Aliens they manage to weave them into the Bible and other religious texts.I am more inclined to believe people who say they do not know at this point how we got here and the theory that we are but a complete accident is as good as anything else I have heard
Alpinestars said:
WinstonWolf said:
Interesting program on now about the formation of the solar system. Lots of science, nothing about any gods...
Sounds no more or less believable than God. Coulda, woulda, shoulda theories. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff