Originally posted by: zombie84
Some of us have thought about it long and hard, researched many history and science books, looked at facts, debated possibilities and arrived at the conclusion through histrorical and scientific analaysis and rational thought that such a concept of a supernatural deity is impossible. Because the fact is that based on our current understanding of the world, god does not clearly exist and not only that the universe functions in such a way that he is not necessary to explain its existance. Furthermore, historic facts reveals that every religion to be a man-made creation, although much of this is not widely known since it is considered taboo. Now, this does not rule out the possibility of some sort of god, a being not belonging to any earthly religion (though perhaps assuming traits of some), but that nevertheless still exists but has not been detected and proved by us yet. However, there is no reason to believe such a thing because the proof in favor of this simply does not exist. The burden of proof lies with the believers to show that such a thing is clearly possible, and the more wild a theory the more strong the proof must be. Its why most believe that sasquatch and fortune tellers and alien abductions to be fabrications as well, because there simply isnt hard evidence in favor of such amazing things. There also exists the possibility that in my basement is an invisible, undetectable pink elephant that science may one day be able to prove--but until science proves such a thing exists in my basement i am not going to believe in such an incredible concept. Why should god be exempt from any of these basic rationality theories which we use everyday in our lives? It seems to me that people are more lenient towards such things because they have had such concepts ingrained in them since birth and because there is a very immediate emotional need to have such a possibility. I would love to believe in such wondrous things, just as i would love to believe in human levitation and such, but i simply must face reality that such conepts are, at our present knowledge--and which i am fairly confident in will stand the test of time simply because they are of such basic logic arguments-- will remain unproved and therefore disproved.
Originally posted by: C3PX
Actually, I was thinking of writing something to the same effect, but decided against it. You seem quite confident that there is no chance of a God existing and anyone who thinks differently is a moron. I am of the belief that there is no way to 100% prove the existence or non existence of a God.
This then leaves us with the belief that there must not be one. You must believe in a negative until a positive is proven. There is no way of proving that an invisible, undetectable leprachan named Fred secretly controls the universe--and who are we to say its impossible? But there is no way of proving or disproving it either way. Therefore we must accept that, until it is proven positive, we must assume the negative. This is called burden of proof. Its why religious wackos like the scientologists are considered idiots.
That depends on your definition of god, an often overlooked aspect. Is god supernatural? Does he submit to natural law? Or is he "above" such things, being more of a traditional "magical" type deity? If he is the latter then it would indeed be impossible to prove such a thing--god would be supernatural, as in not part of the natural universe, in which case science no longer applies. If god exists in the natural universe then he would be provable but also not omipotent since he would be regulated by the same laws of physics that we are and hence not fit many peoples defintion of god.
Only a fool decides the answer is no without really thinking about it and studying it on his own (which means not just believing it because our parents, teachers, or other influentual people in our lives thought this way). In the same way I think it can be foolish to believe in god for these same reasons.
Actually, I was thinking of writing something to the same effect, but decided against it. You seem quite confident that there is no chance of a God existing and anyone who thinks differently is a moron. I am of the belief that there is no way to 100% prove the existence or non existence of a God.
This then leaves us with the belief that there must not be one. You must believe in a negative until a positive is proven. There is no way of proving that an invisible, undetectable leprachan named Fred secretly controls the universe--and who are we to say its impossible? But there is no way of proving or disproving it either way. Therefore we must accept that, until it is proven positive, we must assume the negative. This is called burden of proof. Its why religious wackos like the scientologists are considered idiots.
Also it is quite clear that you know absolutly nothing about religion or the idea of god (beyond what your high-school science teacher conditioned you to believe), as you said that there is no such thing as a unique religion, now that is one phrase that I can with all confidence says is total and complete bullshit.
Considering i was raised christian, was baptised, confirmed and attented 15 years of Catholic school, as well as studying university science as well as general world religion, i would say that statement is quite an unfounded assumption. Quite the opposite--my deep immersement and study into these very subjects has led me to my conclusions.
As for "no unique religion"--that statement must be taken with the proper context. Obviously Hinduism and Christianity are quite different and obviously every religion is distinct and unique. But i meant it in the context that the Pope was using--that Islam offers nothing new or original. Because the same is true to a large degree of Christianity, and in the earliest Roman periods of its founding this was a giant roadblock and scandal--of course they overcame this by simply killing those who disagreed. But what i mean is that every religion has the same wisdom sayings and the same basic "sacred king" drama--Muhammad/Moses, Jesus/Joshua/Krishna/Buddha/Osiris. Entire books have been written over the fact that Jesus is a basic copy of Buddha, and that this same basic archetypal story is tracable to even earlier times. Its based on Astrology, where the sun represents God and the savior figure is his earlthy embodiment in the form of a human son, with the twelve underlings/disciples representing the zodaical signs and the dying/rising representing the procession of the equinoxes. Its the most ancient form of religion known to man, believed to have been developed during the neolithic period when humans made the transition from hunter-gatherers (which gives us the even more ancient myths, ie genesis) to farmers, hence the dependance on the sun and the seasonal harvest. The Egyptians and Aztecs have probably the most obvious example of this notion--in fact, early christian New World settlers were horrified to discover that the Aztecs had their own "jesus" in the form of Quetzalcoatl, only theirs was thousands of years older!
The only hard evidence i have presented is verifiable historic fact. I'm not close minded or ignorant, I'm rational and fact based. I'm completely open to the possibility of someone proving that a god exists, I'm just very unconfident of such a feat being possible based on the sheer onslaught of evidence in favor of the negative. I'm also not trying to convince anyone. I'm just presenting facts. Strange how religious people are so apprehensive of facts.
Science can just as well prove the existence of a creator as it can disprove the existence of such a creator.
Considering i was raised christian, was baptised, confirmed and attented 15 years of Catholic school, as well as studying university science as well as general world religion, i would say that statement is quite an unfounded assumption. Quite the opposite--my deep immersement and study into these very subjects has led me to my conclusions.
As for "no unique religion"--that statement must be taken with the proper context. Obviously Hinduism and Christianity are quite different and obviously every religion is distinct and unique. But i meant it in the context that the Pope was using--that Islam offers nothing new or original. Because the same is true to a large degree of Christianity, and in the earliest Roman periods of its founding this was a giant roadblock and scandal--of course they overcame this by simply killing those who disagreed. But what i mean is that every religion has the same wisdom sayings and the same basic "sacred king" drama--Muhammad/Moses, Jesus/Joshua/Krishna/Buddha/Osiris. Entire books have been written over the fact that Jesus is a basic copy of Buddha, and that this same basic archetypal story is tracable to even earlier times. Its based on Astrology, where the sun represents God and the savior figure is his earlthy embodiment in the form of a human son, with the twelve underlings/disciples representing the zodaical signs and the dying/rising representing the procession of the equinoxes. Its the most ancient form of religion known to man, believed to have been developed during the neolithic period when humans made the transition from hunter-gatherers (which gives us the even more ancient myths, ie genesis) to farmers, hence the dependance on the sun and the seasonal harvest. The Egyptians and Aztecs have probably the most obvious example of this notion--in fact, early christian New World settlers were horrified to discover that the Aztecs had their own "jesus" in the form of Quetzalcoatl, only theirs was thousands of years older!
Also it is a bunch of bunk that you say the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of us theists, it would be impossible for any of us to try to convice you of the existence of a god if you have such a close mind as to sneer at the very idea of religion(s). Also, you claim that you have presented proof that atheism is the way to go, yet I have read all your posts and see nothing. Any of the "evidence" you have posted doesn't stand up to anything.
The only hard evidence i have presented is verifiable historic fact. I'm not close minded or ignorant, I'm rational and fact based. I'm completely open to the possibility of someone proving that a god exists, I'm just very unconfident of such a feat being possible based on the sheer onslaught of evidence in favor of the negative. I'm also not trying to convince anyone. I'm just presenting facts. Strange how religious people are so apprehensive of facts.
Science can just as well prove the existence of a creator as it can disprove the existence of such a creator.
That depends on your definition of god, an often overlooked aspect. Is god supernatural? Does he submit to natural law? Or is he "above" such things, being more of a traditional "magical" type deity? If he is the latter then it would indeed be impossible to prove such a thing--god would be supernatural, as in not part of the natural universe, in which case science no longer applies. If god exists in the natural universe then he would be provable but also not omipotent since he would be regulated by the same laws of physics that we are and hence not fit many peoples defintion of god.
Only a fool decides the answer is no without really thinking about it and studying it on his own (which means not just believing it because our parents, teachers, or other influentual people in our lives thought this way). In the same way I think it can be foolish to believe in god for these same reasons.
Some of us have thought about it long and hard, researched many history and science books, looked at facts, debated possibilities and arrived at the conclusion through histrorical and scientific analaysis and rational thought that such a concept of a supernatural deity is impossible. Because the fact is that based on our current understanding of the world, god does not clearly exist and not only that the universe functions in such a way that he is not necessary to explain its existance. Furthermore, historic facts reveals that every religion to be a man-made creation, although much of this is not widely known since it is considered taboo. Now, this does not rule out the possibility of some sort of god, a being not belonging to any earthly religion (though perhaps assuming traits of some), but that nevertheless still exists but has not been detected and proved by us yet. However, there is no reason to believe such a thing because the proof in favor of this simply does not exist. The burden of proof lies with the believers to show that such a thing is clearly possible, and the more wild a theory the more strong the proof must be. Its why most believe that sasquatch and fortune tellers and alien abductions to be fabrications as well, because there simply isnt hard evidence in favor of such amazing things. There also exists the possibility that in my basement is an invisible, undetectable pink elephant that science may one day be able to prove--but until science proves such a thing exists in my basement i am not going to believe in such an incredible concept. Why should god be exempt from any of these basic rationality theories which we use everyday in our lives? It seems to me that people are more lenient towards such things because they have had such concepts ingrained in them since birth and because there is a very immediate emotional need to have such a possibility. I would love to believe in such wondrous things, just as i would love to believe in human levitation and such, but i simply must face reality that such conepts are, at our present knowledge--and which i am fairly confident in will stand the test of time simply because they are of such basic logic arguments-- will remain unproved and therefore disproved.
I didn't say that the burden of proof lies with you and other atheists to disprove God's existence, I said that the burden of proof lies with you to prove that all religions are bullshit. There is a difference. And you really haven't produced any hard evidence. It is hearsay, because all you've mentioned is basically 'a bunch of guys at some conference sometime all of a sudden realised that religion was bullshit'. That is really all you've said - no names, no sources, no quotes, no comparison of texts to suggest how they may have unanimously come to this conclusion. The definition of that, my friend, is hearsay.
Obviously, the burden of proof lies with us (Christians, agnostics, deists, etc.) when it comes to the existence of God, but that was never what I was trying to do. I was looking specifically at your claim that "all religion is bullshit". I do not believe that universality between religions and religious concepts diminish their authenticity in any way. More often than not, it bolsters these teachings and ideas as universal truths.
At the end of the day, we're all placing our faith in something. I believe in God, for example, but if I backtrack far enough, I am still forced to ask the question: where did God come from? If I don't believe in God, however, I still have to ask: where did matter come from? And that's regardless of whether you subscribe to the Big Bang Theory. To some people, pantheists, in particular, God and matter could very well be the same thing: before the universe came into being, there was invisible, eternal matter lying dormant. The difference between Creationism and the Big Bang is that one came together by force of Will and the other didn't. Both parties still have to get past that concept of eternity and pre-existence: the something-from-nothing problem.