How do people become so brainwashed?

[Vizsla]

can't remember said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Religious - I believe there is a god.
Atheist - Do you have any proof?
Religious - No.
Atheist - I don't believe you then.
Religious - Prove I am wrong.
Atheist - Scientifically impossible
Religious - If you can't prove it (your test), you believe that I am wrong, and now we have reached a point which we can agree upon;
We both believe in (or 'not in' if you prefer) something we can not prove.
There is no further need for conflict between us on this point. Can I buy you a beer?

Terrible logic on display here. The burden of proof remains with the believer. The prove I'm wrong method of debate should be left in the playground.

Correct. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[Nick NE]

DoubleTime said:

You think that's brainwashing?

Oh my fking GOSH, trust me, this ones a stinkah!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQdIiEUFtqk

That's brilliant - absolutely love it. That pastor / MC is ace!

(Just had to quickly close YouTube when a customer came into reception - my speakers were rather loud!)

Selecta!

[Goaty Bill 2]

can't remember said:

Terrible logic on display here. The burden of proof remains with the believer. The prove I'm wrong method of debate should be left in the playground.

At no point did I ask anyone to believe in anything.
I am sure that most people (including myself) are perfectly capable of guiding their soul (if we have one) straight to Hell (if it exists), without my assistance, encouragement or advice.

I accept no 'burden of proof' as I accept no responsibility for the independent actions of others.

[gregs656]

There are some robust arguments for the existence of a God (or Gods).

IMO people are too quick to look to science to provide answers and explanations for everything. The scientific method is very good at what it does but it can't answer all life's questions or explain all life's events.

I am an atheist FWIW.

[austinsmirk]

0000 said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Religious - I believe there is a god.
Atheist - Do you have any proof?
Religious - No.
Atheist - I don't believe you then.
Religious - Prove I am wrong.
Atheist - Scientifically impossible
Religious - If you can't prove it (your test), you believe that I am wrong, and now we have reached a point which we can agree upon;
We both believe in (or 'not in' if you prefer) something we can not prove.
There is no further need for conflict between us on this point. Can I buy you a beer?

Ah well no, you can't buy me a beer because my made up sky pilot of "X" faith says I can't drink. (delete made up faith as appropriate)

[del mar]

I was once asked to prove I had not seen a proposal form....

On holiday last year one of the children (under 10) had a book of short questions designed to make them think.

Do Dogs believe in God ?

[hman]

Still has me in pieces watching this - awesome (and the vids have been around for sometime btw)

Nick NE said:

DoubleTime said:

You think that's brainwashing?

Oh my fking GOSH, trust me, this ones a stinkah!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQdIiEUFtqk

That's brilliant - absolutely love it. That pastor / MC is ace!

(Just had to quickly close YouTube when a customer came into reception - my speakers were rather loud!)

Selecta!

[p1stonhead]

gregs656 said:

There are some robust arguments for the existence of a God (or Gods).

IMO people are too quick to look to science to provide answers and explanations for everything. The scientific method is very good at what it does but it can't answer all life's questions or explain all life's events.

I am an atheist FWIW.

What robust arguments are there that can't be explained by science or can't be defined as 'we don't know yet?

Edited by p1stonhead on Friday 24th February 13:40

[Boring_Chris]

Similar(ish) subject, The Mirror declares "Does the LHC prove the existence of ghosts?"

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/771662/Brian...

Both physicists quoted in the article seem to suggest the opposite....

[gregs656]

p1stonhead said:

What robust arguments are there that can't be explained by science or can't be defined as 'we don't know yet?

Edited by p1stonhead on Friday 24th February 13:40

There are lots of them, theologians and philosophers have been writing on the subject for Millenia after all.

I quite like the modal ontological argument which is:

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn‘t.
(3) If God doesn‘t have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn‘t.
Therefore:
(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t.
(5) If God necessarily doesn‘t have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn‘t exist.
Therefore:
(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t exist.
(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn‘t exist.
Therefore:
(8) God has necessary existence.
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
Therefore:
(10) God exists.

(taken in this form from - http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proo...

[ATG]

p1stonhead said:

Dagnir said:

...but if they weren't ever introduced to Religion as a concept, would it naturally take that form?

I suspect not and certainly not now, in this age of scientific understanding.

Someone said the below I cant remember who;

If every religious book and every science book that exist were destroyed today and no one was left who remembered them, in 1000 years, all of the science ones would be back because the tests would all yield the same results. The religious ones wouldnt exist or would be totally different.

The religious ideas would return first by several thousand years, if history is any guide, and although the gods' names wouldn't be the same, the same basic themes would resurface in the myths and parables. People would be worshipping animal spirits, the Earth, Sun and Moon, fertility and warrior gods, there'd be creation myths defining man's relationship with the physical world, parent-like gods that give moral guidance, etc, etc.

[smn159]

gregs656 said:

There are lots of them, theologians and philosophers have been writing on the subject for Millenia after all.

I quite like the modal ontological argument which is:

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn‘t.
(3) If God doesn‘t have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn‘t.
Therefore:
(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t.
(5) If God necessarily doesn‘t have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn‘t exist.
Therefore:
(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t exist.
(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn‘t exist.
Therefore:
(8) God has necessary existence.
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
Therefore:
(10) God exists.

(taken in this form from - http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proo...

Interesting. What happens if you substitute 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster' or 'The Unicorn living in my garage' for God?

[gregs656]

smn159 said:

Interesting. What happens if you substitute 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster' or 'The Unicorn living in my garage' for God?

See the first premise - contained within that is the idea that God = perfection in all respects. It is not good enough for good to have a contingent existence as it would for a Unicorn, for example. I am not sure the concept of The Flying Spaghetti Monster includes the idea of perfection, but it might. Of course this particular argument uses the Western God but it could be used for others.

To be clear though I am not interested in arguing for the existence of God, merely saying that dismissing the idea out of hand and assuming there are no robust reasons to believe in a God will land you in hot water should you ever come across a scholar who knows their arguments.

[p1stonhead]

gregs656 said:

smn159 said:

Interesting. What happens if you substitute 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster' or 'The Unicorn living in my garage' for God?

See the first premise - contained within that is the idea that God = perfection in all respects. It is not good enough for good to have a contingent existence as it would for a Unicorn, for example. I am not sure the concept of The Flying Spaghetti Monster includes the idea of perfection, but it might. Of course this particular argument uses the Western God but it could be used for others.

To be clear though I am not interested in arguing for the existence of God, merely saying that dismissing the idea out of hand and assuming there are no robust reasons to believe in a God will land you in hot water should you ever come across a scholar who knows their arguments.

Existence or non existance isn't dependent on necessity though is it?

Edited by p1stonhead on Friday 24th February 14:51

[smn159]

gregs656 said:

See the first premise - contained within that is the idea that God = perfection in all respects. It is not good enough for good to have a contingent existence as it would for a Unicorn, for example. I am not sure the concept of The Flying Spaghetti Monster includes the idea of perfection, but it might. Of course this particular argument uses the Western God but it could be used for others.

To be clear though I am not interested in arguing for the existence of God, merely saying that dismissing the idea out of hand and assuming there are no robust reasons to believe in a God will land you in hot water should you ever come across a scholar who knows their arguments.

How do they deal with the paradox that Gods perfection implies both omnipotence and omniscience? i.e. that an omniscient God who know everything that will ever happen does not have the power to change his mind?

All of the above, including the ontological argument, smacks of word play rather than genuine proof to be honest.

[gregs656]

p1stonhead said:

Existence or non existance isn't dependent on necessity though is it.

Can something which necessarily must exist, not exist?

edited to add:

smn159 said:

How do they deal with the paradox that Gods perfection implies both omnipotence and omniscience? i.e. that an omniscient God who know everything that will ever happen does not have the power to change his mind?

All of the above, including the ontological argument, smacks of word play rather than genuine proof to be honest.

With respect that smacks of the 'true scotsman' defence, what on earth would constitute a 'genuine proof', particularly as logic and science are what so many who dismiss theology out of hand pin their colours to and this is a purely logical argument.

I don't know the answer to your first question, I don't know if Plantinga ever discussed it.

Edited by gregs656 on Friday 24th February 15:06

Edited by gregs656 on Friday 24th February 15:07

[p1stonhead]

gregs656 said:

p1stonhead said:

Existence or non existance isn't dependent on necessity though is it.

Can something which necessarily must exist, not exist?

edited to add:

smn159 said:

How do they deal with the paradox that Gods perfection implies both omnipotence and omniscience? i.e. that an omniscient God who know everything that will ever happen does not have the power to change his mind?

All of the above, including the ontological argument, smacks of word play rather than genuine proof to be honest.

With respect that smacks of the 'true scotsman' defence, what on earth would constitute a 'genuine proof', particularly as logic and science are what so many who dismiss theology out of hand pin their colours to and this is a purely logical argument.

I don't know the answer to your first question, I don't know if Plantinga ever discussed it.

Edited by gregs656 on Friday 24th February 15:06

Edited by gregs656 on Friday 24th February 15:07

Logic is the main thing which serparates those who believe and those who don't. Logically someone shouldn't believe in a god without proof. For some people belief can override logic.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Atheism, while being a perfectly logical conclusion in today's world of science, is still a form of belief in itself.

Yes, and baldness is a hairstyle, not collecting stamps is a hobby, "OFF" is a TV channel and celibacy is a sexual activity.

[smn159]

p1stonhead said:

Logic is the main thing which serparates those who believe and those who don't. Logically someone shouldn't believe in a god without proof. For some people belief can override logic.

Belief is largely related to culture and upbringing though. It's not a good reason to accept something unconditionally as being true in the absence of any further supporting evidence.

[smn159]

gregs656 said:

With respect that smacks of the 'true scotsman' defence, what on earth would constitute a 'genuine proof', particularly as logic and science are what so many who dismiss theology out of hand pin their colours to and this is a purely logical argument.

I don't know the answer to your first question, I don't know if Plantinga ever discussed it.

Edited by gregs656 on Friday 24th February 15:06

Edited by gregs656 on Friday 24th February 15:07

Well if you're defining God as someone who answers prayers, performs miracles or created the world then you're saying that there is something supernatural which can interact with the natural world - which is very much within the realm of logic and science.

Genuine proof of this interaction would be fairly straightforward to demonstrate if it were true. Plenty of studies on intercessory prayers for example (all negative).