God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[Glamour]

I'm not insulting you. I wrote a post about the importance of listening to each other and you responded to it with "wall of text". What else do you want me to say to that?

Paragraphs are your friend.

So we are going to reduce this entire issue to something as pedantic as this? And by the way, I consider that to be one paragraph. I'm sorry if your patience runs out after a certain number of lines. Some paragraphs are long.

[Vilatania]

Well I'm officially done with this conversation, does anyone want to have a constructive debate that doesn't have something to do with me personally?

Personally?
Did I miss something?

I think so

[The Creepoc Infinite]

Personally?
Did I miss something?

Yes. You missed a lot.

Can you summarize?

[The States of Balloon]

Yes. You missed a lot.

Can you summarize?

Wall of text.

[Genivaria]

Exactly. There is no empirical evidence for God's existence except that which can be more easily explained by the natural laws and theories.

No, there isn't any empirical evidence, you are correct. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It means there is no empirical evidence at the moment, the same as there aren't for many of the scientific discoveries that there will be evidence for in the future. The point of science is to be open-minded, not to say that because there is no evidence the hypothesis is unacceptable completely, otherwise there would be no scientific method and we would still be running around in loincloths. Chanting about God or something.

If there is no evidence to support a hypothesis then the hypothesis is dismissed. Period.
Saying "oh well a god COULD exist" is irrelevant.

See Russell's Teapot.

[Glamour]

Well I'm officially done with this conversation, does anyone want to have a constructive debate that doesn't have something to do with me personally?

I don't know you personally, the same way you don't know every religious person and mentally ill person personally and so should not conflate the two upon your entry to this thread, but I'm glad we are finished. Have a nice "constructive debate" with someone else who you can harangue for evidence when the concept of evidence for Good makes no sense, not even to you.

[Genivaria]

Paragraphs are your friend.

So we are going to reduce this entire issue to something as pedantic as this? And by the way, I consider that to be one paragraph. I'm sorry if your patience runs out after a certain number of lines. Some paragraphs are long.

You're expected to make your posts legible instead of an eyesore if you expect people to read them.
That's extremely basic stuff which I shouldn't have to explain.

[Glamour]

No, there isn't any empirical evidence, you are correct. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It means there is no empirical evidence at the moment, the same as there aren't for many of the scientific discoveries that there will be evidence for in the future. The point of science is to be open-minded, not to say that because there is no evidence the hypothesis is unacceptable completely, otherwise there would be no scientific method and we would still be running around in loincloths. Chanting about God or something.

If there is no evidence to support a hypothesis then the hypothesis is dismissed. Period.
Saying "oh well a god COULD exist" is irrelevant.

See Russell's Teapot.

But if we are talking in terms of facts, God could exist, or God could not exist. They are two sides of the same coin. The fact that some believe God does exist and some lack belief in God's existence does not affect the belief or the faith. And it does not require evidence. If you want to call it a mass hallucination, fair enough, but in that case it it a health concern you have to navigate within the society. Dismissing it is irrational, funnily enough.

[Glamour]

So we are going to reduce this entire issue to something as pedantic as this? And by the way, I consider that to be one paragraph. I'm sorry if your patience runs out after a certain number of lines. Some paragraphs are long.

You're expected to make your posts legible instead of an eyesore if you expect people to read them.
That's extremely basic stuff which I shouldn't have to explain.

If you want to get into the grammar and syntax of why I wrote that as one single paragraph, then good for you, but there are more important things in the world to talk about. I can assure you it was one paragraph deliberately. I don't spend my time talking about things like this, so you can skip it and ignore it if it's an "eyesore" to you, or you can read it and respond to the content. I'm disappointed that I do have to explain this to you and the quality of conversation here has flatlined, so I'm also done here.

[Genivaria]

If there is no evidence to support a hypothesis then the hypothesis is dismissed. Period.
Saying "oh well a god COULD exist" is irrelevant.

See Russell's Teapot.

But if we are talking in terms of facts, God could exist, or God could not exist. They are two sides of the same coin. The fact that some believe God does exist and some lack belief in God's existence does not affect the belief or the faith. And it does not require evidence. If you want to call it a mass hallucination, fair enough, but in that case it it a health concern you have to navigate within the society. Dismissing it is irrational, funnily enough.

It is not irrational to dismiss a claim that hasn't met its burden of proof no.
For the last fucking time what could be is fucking irrelevant.

[Genivaria]

You're expected to make your posts legible instead of an eyesore if you expect people to read them.
That's extremely basic stuff which I shouldn't have to explain.

If you want to get into the grammar and syntax of why I wrote that as one single paragraph, then good for you, but there are more important things in the world to talk about. I can assure you it was one paragraph deliberately. I don't spend my time talking about things like this, so you can skip it and ignore it if it's an "eyesore" to you, or you can read it and respond to the content. I'm disappointed that I do have to explain this to you and the quality of conversation here has flatlined, so I'm also done here.

Thank you for improving the quality of the conversation by removing yourself from it.

[Glamour]

If you want to get into the grammar and syntax of why I wrote that as one single paragraph, then good for you, but there are more important things in the world to talk about. I can assure you it was one paragraph deliberately. I don't spend my time talking about things like this, so you can skip it and ignore it if it's an "eyesore" to you, or you can read it and respond to the content. I'm disappointed that I do have to explain this to you and the quality of conversation here has flatlined, so I'm also done here.

Thank you for improving the quality of the conversation by removing yourself from it.

Maybe I should rephrase. There was no conversation. There was a running monologue by me with no substantial response, and now I'm bored.

[Genivaria]

Thank you for improving the quality of the conversation by removing yourself from it.

Maybe I should rephrase. There was no conversation. There was a running monologue by me with no substantial response, and now I'm bored.

Then go away.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

Thank you for improving the quality of the conversation by removing yourself from it.

Maybe I should rephrase. There was no conversation. There was a running monologue by me with no substantial response, and now I'm bored.

Just take a break from this thread.
You are clearly getting on peoples neeves

[Sun Wukong]

Except the the ten commandments. They were not nullified because Christ said explicitly to follow them and also added "love thy neighbour as thyself". I'm sure you know that the commandments include "thou shalt not kill". Anyone who kills in the name of Christ is using religion to serve their own means. This can manifest politically as well and has done in the past. That is nothing to do with the message of the religion itself. Why? Because, in fact, it flies directly in the face of the message of the religion. Islam is another story, but you were the one who decided to focus on Christianity. And I'm sorry about how you were fired from your job because of nasty people who constituted the majority and did not accept you since you were in the minority. But that can't be blamed on religion. It is simple in-group/out-group human psychology and it happens all the time under every guise imaginable.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - Luke 19:27

Now I'll not say that people who kill in the name of Christ aren't using religion to serve their own means. But you cannot pretend that this has nothing to do with the message of Christianity.

[Jamzmania]

Except the the ten commandments. They were not nullified because Christ said explicitly to follow them and also added "love thy neighbour as thyself". I'm sure you know that the commandments include "thou shalt not kill". Anyone who kills in the name of Christ is using religion to serve their own means. This can manifest politically as well and has done in the past. That is nothing to do with the message of the religion itself. Why? Because, in fact, it flies directly in the face of the message of the religion. Islam is another story, but you were the one who decided to focus on Christianity. And I'm sorry about how you were fired from your job because of nasty people who constituted the majority and did not accept you since you were in the minority. But that can't be blamed on religion. It is simple in-group/out-group human psychology and it happens all the time under every guise imaginable.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - Luke 19:27

Now I'll not say that people who kill in the name of Christ aren't using religion to serve their own means. But you cannot pretend that this has nothing to do with the message of Christianity.

It has nothing to do with Christ. Murder is strictly forbidden, and so is taking the Lord's name in vain - which, contrary to popular belief, does not mean you can't say "Oh my God." It means that you shall not use the Lord's name as a justification of evil.

[King Stannis Baratheon]

What I have seen from the posters on this thread is truly astounding. You should all be ashamed of yourself. Look into your sins, for the night is dark and full of terror, and none of you will survive the coming winter.

[The States of Balloon]

What I have seen from the posters on this thread is truly astounding. You should all be ashamed of yourself. Look into your sins, for the night is dark and full of terror, and none of you will survive the coming winter.

I have. And I didn't care.

[The V O I D]

Hmm where do I begin? I'm not responding you your posts about the mental disorder thing anymore. I've already explained myself half a dozen times or more and if you can't accept that then that's your problem. Not mine.

2. I never offered to join anything.

3. Bias =/= Prejudice

4. There is no incorrect. I have my opinion, you have yours.

5. I believe that any suggestion given by a religious follower who has their religion in mind when making the suggestion should be scrutinized more thoroughly than other suggestions yes. Remove their democratic rights? No.

6. States legalizing LGBT does not mean that Christians have stopped trying to infringe on their rights. It simply means that the state has done it's job.

7. So your saying Germany is un-developed/third world?

8. You may need to re-read that part of the post again. Hating something and being Prejudiced are different things.

9. I did not say anything about it being based on a minority group. Given how many times a day I encounter people like this I'd say it's hardly a minority. Your opinion is biased because you said yourself your catholic. So clearly your offended and think that anything that I say and do is incorrect or wrong. Such as when you said burning the bible is wrong. That's your opinion, your entitled to it but don't go telling me I'm wrong. It is also likely that you consider every other group in your religion to be a minority or wrong. That doesn't make you special, your all still Christians. You all are supposed to be using the same book to guide your actions. Minority or otherwise, you all claim you ARE following the book when you do good or bad things. Study of the book shows that to be true in both cases. The bible condones actions in some parts, and then condemns them in others.

2. You said earlier that you support the militant atheists persecuting Christians, and if given the chance, would join them.

3. And you didn't respond to it other than saying this odd equation. Guess that means this point is correct.

4. "Opinion." In the Constitution, one of the amendments dictates that, in fact, there can not be union of Church and State. That means they are separated by Federal Law, mate. So, yes, there IS an incorrect statement. Opinions aren't facts. My statement was fact. Good job not knowing that, though.

5. So, let's restrict their rights, but not remove them. Uhuh. Got it.

6. Yeah, but the U.S. is mostly Christian, that includes politicians. I do not see how this changes anything.

7. Evidence? Please? Links to something that states these as fact would be nice.

8. Ok, fine. You win this one. It's definitely discriminating.

9. My opinion is not biased, good sir. I said I was Catholic Christian, yes. But I never once said that I wasn't willing to convert or change according to how I feel and what I think is correct. As for your statement on how I think anything you say or do is wrong... more bias because Christians are evil! Also, never said YOU were specifically wrong for doing it; I just said the act SEEMED wrong. Read again please. I don't consider other groups of Christians minorities. Some groups are minorities, and there are others who are the majority. The majority being the main sects of Christianity, and the minorities being the unrecognized sects. And there you go again, saying we're all the same. Sure we believe in the same God, but that's where our agreements end.

You saying my opinion is biased because I'm a Christian is basically calling yourself biased because your atheist. Just saying.

[Nerotysia]

A fine OP overall, but some mistakes were made:

Q: But religion caused the dark ages and prevented progress?
A: Wrong again, it was one of the lights in the darkness, preserving the scientific and cultural heritage and knowledge of the ancient times when the Barbarians invaded and caused Rome to fall. Thus, it made the Renaissance possible, where all modern sciences originated.

---

No, the Church did not cause the Dark Ages, but the Church's staunch loyalty to classical ideas about nature and the universe did stymie scientific progress. Certainly the Church's relationship with the Scientific Revolution was rather poor, Galileo being the famous example of this, but you are correct in saying the Church preserved classical culture. Also it's a rather silly oversimplification to say that the Church made the Renaissance possible. The Church helped preserve the culture that sparked a lot of Renaissance art, sure, but a variety of factors combined to make the artistic flourishing possible, and the Church can only be said to be directly responsible for the High Renaissance, which does not nearly encompass the entirety of the Renaissance.

This is, aside from the abortion thread, the topic that will never end: Is there a god, and if yes, what is that god like, what did the god do and are there possibly even multiple of them?
The discussion has obviously been going for thousands of years, with no side ever being able to achieve a complete, smashing victory. But recently they have been getting closer again. The pope has been approaching atheists, as various reports have described, and there is no reason why science and religion can't coexist as long as you aren't taking the bible literally. So while the debate nowadays thankfully isn't as divisive as in previous times, it continues to be the subject of heated debates.

Well, it wasn't really divisive. The vast majority of people were theists, and any atheists were usually either ostracized or killed. So I don't really think you can say it was divisive.

Personally, I'm rather agnostic, but not necessarily atheist. I'm more leaning towards being slightly religious and spiritual myself, but only to a certain point, as I trust modern science as well.

Agnosticism does not describe religious beliefs. I know what you're saying, but you probably should avoid calling yourself merely agnostic when it comes to religion. Based on what you said, I'd classify you more as unaffiliated, if anything.

I agree with Martin Luther King Jr. here:

“Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals.”

Well, religion does not automatically grant wisdom. But otherwise he is correct .

I ask you the above questions: What is your opinion on the existence of one or multiple gods, and what could they possibly have done or not?

There is no evidence for the existence of a God, and personally I don't feel inclined to believe in him anyways. I find the concept that God that is super-involved in human affairs rather dumb, if understandable in certain circumstances.

[Nerotysia]

But if we are talking in terms of facts, God could exist, or God could not exist. They are two sides of the same coin.

Well, of course. Also the sky is blue and people exist.

Dismissing it is irrational, funnily enough.

If a claim lacks evidence, there's nothing wrong with dismissing it.

[Twilight Imperium]

A fine OP overall, but some mistakes were made:

Q: But religion caused the dark ages and prevented progress?
A: Wrong again, it was one of the lights in the darkness, preserving the scientific and cultural heritage and knowledge of the ancient times when the Barbarians invaded and caused Rome to fall. Thus, it made the Renaissance possible, where all modern sciences originated.

---

No, the Church did not cause the Dark Ages, but the Church's staunch loyalty to classical ideas about nature and the universe did stymie scientific progress. Certainly the Church's relationship with the Scientific Revolution was rather poor, Galileo being the famous example of this, but you are correct in saying the Church preserved classical culture. Also it's a rather silly oversimplification to say that the Church made the Renaissance possible. The Church helped preserve the culture that sparked a lot of Renaissance art, sure, but a variety of factors combined to make the artistic flourishing possible, and the Church can only be said to be directly responsible for the High Renaissance, which does not nearly encompass the entirety of the Renaissance.

Galileo wasn't persecuted for his heliocentrist beliefs, he was persecuted for being a jackass to his sponsors. His sponsor, by the way, was the Pope.

[Nerotysia]

A fine OP overall, but some mistakes were made:


No, the Church did not cause the Dark Ages, but the Church's staunch loyalty to classical ideas about nature and the universe did stymie scientific progress. Certainly the Church's relationship with the Scientific Revolution was rather poor, Galileo being the famous example of this, but you are correct in saying the Church preserved classical culture. Also it's a rather silly oversimplification to say that the Church made the Renaissance possible. The Church helped preserve the culture that sparked a lot of Renaissance art, sure, but a variety of factors combined to make the artistic flourishing possible, and the Church can only be said to be directly responsible for the High Renaissance, which does not nearly encompass the entirety of the Renaissance.

Galileo wasn't persecuted for his heliocentrist beliefs, he was persecuted for being a jackass to his sponsors. His sponsor, by the way, was the Pope.

No, he was persecuted for his claims. Your claim is an oversimplification at best, and a blatant lie at worst.

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

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Galileo wasn't persecuted for his heliocentrist beliefs, he was persecuted for being a jackass to his sponsors. His sponsor, by the way, was the Pope.

More like his friendship with the pope was the only reason they didn't go so far as to actually kill him.

[Twilight Imperium]

No, he was persecuted for his claims. Your claim is an oversimplification at best, and a blatant lie at worst.

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

Did you actually read the article?

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

The Jesuits had already seen what he saw, and they were ready to accept his findings. He was personal friends with the Pope, who said "go ahead and publish, but be careful about it". And then he writes the scientific equivalent of a troll post based entirely around bashing a Papal strawman. Heliocentrism was definitely the issue at the core, but Galileo is still a jackass. Especially since if he'd been more politic about it, they might have accepted heliocentrism decades earlier than they did.

More like his friendship with the pope was the only reason they didn't go so far as to actually kill him.

Yeah, and? Anyone else who so blatantly shat on doctrine would have been coated in tar and set on fire as a public spectacle. That the Pope has mercy for his (former) friends isn't exactly shocking.