Is there a God?

[Estanglia]

Sure, but it is using it to control people, which was Sal's point 2 of why people would follow it.

Then how come people ended up believing in it if they had no reason to?

They had a reason to: to control others.

If I'm some medieval European ruler, it's an advantage for me to follow a religion where I can use that religion to argue that I'm chosen by God and all my opposition are heretics who'll be going to hell for disobeying God. It's also an advantage for me to get as many people in my country as possible to follow said religion, since it means more people will believe my claims and won't dare oppose me.

[La Xinga]

Then how come people ended up believing in it if they had no reason to?

They had a reason to: to control others.

If I'm some medieval European ruler, it's an advantage for me to follow a religion where I can use that religion to argue that I'm chosen by God and all my opposition are heretics who'll be going to hell for disobeying God.

Most people wouldn't believe you unless you force it.

It's also an advantage for me to get as many people in my country as possible to follow said religion, since it means more people will believe my claims and won't dare oppose me.

And how will they get it?

[The New California Republic]

Novels can often have excessive or mundane details. Does that mean they are true? Using your metric it does...

This is 50 AD, nobody would waste precious paper to write mundane details about an event they won't consider real or at least inspirational.

The Iliad is full of similarly mundane details about the Greek gods. That doesn't mean it isn't a work of fiction.

Exactly right. To reiterate, the presence of excessive or mundane details says nothing about the truthfulness of the account. I could easily write a scenario about an event in a house, and using my imagination I could very easily describe all the objects and trinkets in the lounge. It is patently absurd to think because I have gone to that level of detail that the lounge actually exists...

[Godular]

The Iliad is full of similarly mundane details about the Greek gods. That doesn't mean it isn't a work of fiction.

Exactly right. To reiterate, the presence of excessive or mundane details says nothing about the truthfulness of the account. I could easily write a scenario about an event in a house, and using my imagination I could very easily describe all the objects and trinkets in the lounge. It is patently absurd to think because I have gone to that level of detail that the lounge actually exists...

Also to reiterate:

Quentin Tarantino movies feature a LOT of mundane details... I'm pretty sure claiming that makes them nonfiction would be a MAJOR stretch.

[Bornarn2]

It is important to point out that Geneviev brought the idea that God is somehow a kind and loving and omnipotent deity up (in spite of —and somehow because of— all of the needless suffering in the universe), and we are detailing how such claims are flawed.

Also, in respect to the previous question you asked: God is generally held to the highest standards, is he not? He’s supposed to be perfect, and that to which we should all aspire. God has a way of specifically and effortlessly eliminating all suffering, and he does not do so. In fact, in creating this universe WITH this suffering in it, as an omnipotent being he is rather literally at fault for the presence of such suffering.

Why in the fuck would he deserve worship for that?

(I know this is from a few posts ago, but this is a nice post to help me join this discussion)

This a very valid argument should we assume this is our only life. What I believe and find logical is that the suffering in the world is a punishment for our actions. Because we did something wrong in the previous life, we are being punished for it in this life. Should we do something right in the previous life, we will recieve our reward in the next. This suffering is justice. Now, I am not saying you should punch someone because "they deserved it", it's just that the suffering in the world isn't just bad luck.

[Godular]

It is important to point out that Geneviev brought the idea that God is somehow a kind and loving and omnipotent deity up (in spite of —and somehow because of— all of the needless suffering in the universe), and we are detailing how such claims are flawed.

Also, in respect to the previous question you asked: God is generally held to the highest standards, is he not? He’s supposed to be perfect, and that to which we should all aspire. God has a way of specifically and effortlessly eliminating all suffering, and he does not do so. In fact, in creating this universe WITH this suffering in it, as an omnipotent being he is rather literally at fault for the presence of such suffering.

Why in the fuck would he deserve worship for that?

(I know this is from a few posts ago, but this is a nice post to help me join this discussion)

This a very valid argument should we assume this is our only life.

It is illogical to presume otherwise.

What I believe and find logical is that the suffering in the world is a punishment for our actions. Because we did something wrong in the previous life, we are being punished for it in this life. Should we do something right in the previous life, we will recieve our reward in the next. This suffering is justice. Now, I am not saying you should punch someone because "they deserved it", it's just that the suffering in the world isn't just bad luck.

I thank you for managing the astounding feat of making reincarnation seem like a transcendent level of deific douchebaggery. Not only does your purportedly omnipotent deity fail to correct for existent suffering, they inflict more of it upon people that in the process of being reincarnated have returned to a state of innocence.

Your god can’t be arsed to correct the problem as it happens, or prevent it from happening in the first place (both of which are quite possible for an all-powerful being to accomplish), but they’ll sure punish their own creations after they have already been rehabilitated.

That shit can fuck right the hell off, straight out the window.

[New yugoslavaia]

(I know this is from a few posts ago, but this is a nice post to help me join this discussion)

This a very valid argument should we assume this is our only life.

It is illogical to presume otherwise.

What I believe and find logical is that the suffering in the world is a punishment for our actions. Because we did something wrong in the previous life, we are being punished for it in this life. Should we do something right in the previous life, we will recieve our reward in the next. This suffering is justice. Now, I am not saying you should punch someone because "they deserved it", it's just that the suffering in the world isn't just bad luck.

I thank you for managing the astounding feat of making reincarnation seem like a transcendent level of deific douchebaggery. Not only does your purportedly omnipotent deity fail to correct for existent suffering, they inflict more of it upon people that in the process of being reincarnated have returned to a state of innocence.

Your god can’t be arsed to correct the problem as it happens, or prevent it from happening in the first place (both of which are quite possible for an all-powerful being to accomplish), but they’ll sure punish their own creations after they have already been rehabilitated.

That shit can fuck right the hell off, straight out the window.

This is only reinforcing my belief that god should be sent to hell.

[Jedi Council]

Written by a whole bunch of people, for a whole bunch of reasons, mostly political, spread out over millennia and thousands of miles.

May I ask how you think people just accepted it?

Depends on who we are talking about.

If we are talking about the elites; likely for power and control.

If we are talking about the peasants; likely because the primitive, ignorant tools who knew nothing about the world around them and were either duped by the Faith or pressured into believing it by society/the elite.

[La Xinga]

May I ask how you think people just accepted it?

Depends on who we are talking about.

If we are talking about the elites; likely for power and control.

If we are talking about the peasants; likely because the primitive, ignorant tools who knew nothing about the world around them and were either duped by the Faith or pressured into believing it by society/the elite.

1. And how does this religion give them more power than pagan ones?
2. Example?

[Jedi Council]

Not what you were arguing. Don't change the argument. To reiterate, you said: "If the Gospels where a myth why is there so much excessive and mundane details?"

Since you are now trying to decoy the subject away from that point after I blew it out of the water, I'm taking it as a nonverbal retraction of what you said.

The topic is about God not our bickering, notice how in my first post I said that "Why would the Apostles die for a lie?" And the bones of Saint Peter in the Vatican prove that they died there.

I will point out that even if these bones were verifiable, it proves literally nothing except that some character in the Bible existed.

We already know this to be true. Pontius Pilate was indeed the Governor of Romnan Palestine, for example.

However, that does not prove that Jesus existed, nor that the miracles that were ascribed to him occured, nor that he was in any ways divine.

[Jedi Council]

Depends on who we are talking about.

If we are talking about the elites; likely for power and control.

If we are talking about the peasants; likely because the primitive, ignorant tools who knew nothing about the world around them and were either duped by the Faith or pressured into believing it by society/the elite.

1. And how does this religion give them more power than pagan ones?
2. Example?

The Pagan faith was very decentralized. Yes there was a priesthood, but the the amount of Gods and different places of worship, not to mention the variation between traditions within the Roman Empire made it a much weaker method of social control than the Christian faith.

Christianity, with it's one God, all wise, all seeing, all powerful, allowed the elites to unite people into one central faith, and, even though splinter groups rapidly formed, like the Nestorians and the Arians, it was still stronger in terms of it moral and social influence because of the very nature of Christian teaching.

Secondly, I am not sure what you want from me here. Independent attestation from the peasantry are exceedingly rare; we get most of our knowledge from religious or academic sources, obviously given the lack of widespread education. But going to the root of what I think you are trying to say ," why would the peasantry believe this if it's not true," it's pretty easy to see why.

Christianity offers a better deal than paganism. Eternal life so long as you follow the rules? Living in paradise, and avoiding the fiery pits of hell? To the uneducated and ignorant, that's appealing.

This argument is flawed by it's very nature anyways. Just because the peasants believed it does not mean it is true. Just because a large population believes in Religion A, that cannot be a justifiable reason to assume Religion A is the correct one.

[La Xinga]

1. And how does this religion give them more power than pagan ones?
2. Example?

The Pagan faith was very decentralized. Yes there was a priesthood, but the the amount of Gods and different places of worship, not to mention the variation between traditions within the Roman Empire made it a much weaker method of social control than the Christian faith.

Christianity, with it's one God, all wise, all seeing, all powerful, allowed the elites to unite people into one central faith, and, even though splinter groups rapidly formed, like the Nestorians and the Arians, it was still stronger in terms of it moral and social influence because of the very nature of Christian teaching.

Secondly, I am not sure what you want from me here. Independent attestation from the peasantry are exceedingly rare; we get most of our knowledge from religious or academic sources, obviously given the lack of widespread education. But going to the root of what I think you are trying to say ," why would the peasantry believe this if it's not true," it's pretty easy to see why.

Christianity offers a better deal than paganism. Eternal life so long as you follow the rules? Living in paradise, and avoiding the fiery pits of hell? To the uneducated and ignorant, that's appealing.

This argument is flawed by it's very nature anyways. Just because the peasants believed it does not mean it is true. Just because a large population believes in Religion A, that cannot be a justifiable reason to assume Religion A is the correct one.

1. Some polytheistic faiths are very centralized. And do we know what Paganism offered, is there "the book of pagans?"
2. If the argument of just one word (Example?) is flawed, than IDK what isn't.

Anyway, as I've said, do we know what Paganism offered, is there "the book of pagans?"

[Jedi Council]

The Pagan faith was very decentralized. Yes there was a priesthood, but the the amount of Gods and different places of worship, not to mention the variation between traditions within the Roman Empire made it a much weaker method of social control than the Christian faith.

Christianity, with it's one God, all wise, all seeing, all powerful, allowed the elites to unite people into one central faith, and, even though splinter groups rapidly formed, like the Nestorians and the Arians, it was still stronger in terms of it moral and social influence because of the very nature of Christian teaching.

Secondly, I am not sure what you want from me here. Independent attestation from the peasantry are exceedingly rare; we get most of our knowledge from religious or academic sources, obviously given the lack of widespread education. But going to the root of what I think you are trying to say ," why would the peasantry believe this if it's not true," it's pretty easy to see why.

Christianity offers a better deal than paganism. Eternal life so long as you follow the rules? Living in paradise, and avoiding the fiery pits of hell? To the uneducated and ignorant, that's appealing.

This argument is flawed by it's very nature anyways. Just because the peasants believed it does not mean it is true. Just because a large population believes in Religion A, that cannot be a justifiable reason to assume Religion A is the correct one.

1. Some polytheistic faiths are very centralized. And do we know what Paganism offered, is there "the book of pagans?"
2. If the argument of just one word (Example?) is flawed, than IDK what isn't.

Anyway, as I've said, do we know what Paganism offered, is there "the book of pagans?"

There are many tales, writings, and archeological evidence for the pre-Christian Roman religion. And yes, you are correct, there have been centralized polytheistic religions. The Roman religion was not one of these.

[La Xinga]

1. Some polytheistic faiths are very centralized. And do we know what Paganism offered, is there "the book of pagans?"
2. If the argument of just one word (Example?) is flawed, than IDK what isn't.

Anyway, as I've said, do we know what Paganism offered, is there "the book of pagans?"

There are many tales, writings, and archeological evidence for the pre-Christian Roman religion. And yes, you are correct, there have been centralized polytheistic religions. The Roman religion was not one of these.

1. But there is no set book, so we don't know what they could've offered.
2. We're not only talking about the Romans here.

[Jedi Council]

There are many tales, writings, and archeological evidence for the pre-Christian Roman religion. And yes, you are correct, there have been centralized polytheistic religions. The Roman religion was not one of these.

1. But there is no set book, so we don't know what they could've offered.
2. We're not only talking about the Romans here.

Um, yeah we do, we actually understand the Roman religion very well. Just because all of the information is not in once place does not mean that we cannot understand their teachings.

While there are other polytheistic religions, Christianity only grew as widespread as it did due to the weaknesses inherent to the Roman religion. Hence the focus on Roman paganism, rather than polytheistic Hinduism, for example.

[La Xinga]

1. But there is no set book, so we don't know what they could've offered.
2. We're not only talking about the Romans here.

Um, yeah we do, we actually understand the Roman religion very well. Just because all of the information is not in once place does not mean that we cannot understand their teachings.

While there are other polytheistic religions, Christianity only grew as widespread as it did due to the weaknesses inherent to the Roman religion. Hence the focus on Roman paganism, rather than polytheistic Hinduism, for example.

I said we are not talking only about the Romans.

[Jedi Council]

Um, yeah we do, we actually understand the Roman religion very well. Just because all of the information is not in once place does not mean that we cannot understand their teachings.

While there are other polytheistic religions, Christianity only grew as widespread as it did due to the weaknesses inherent to the Roman religion. Hence the focus on Roman paganism, rather than polytheistic Hinduism, for example.

I said we are not talking only about the Romans.

What other religions would you like to focus on then?

[La Xinga]

I said we are not talking only about the Romans.

What other religions would you like to focus on then?

I said Roman as a nationality, not as a religion.

[Jedi Council]

What other religions would you like to focus on then?

I said Roman as a nationality, not as a religion.

That's not an answer to my question.

[La Xinga]

I said Roman as a nationality, not as a religion.

That's not an answer to my question.

Then yours is not an answer to mine.

[Jedi Council]

That's not an answer to my question.

Then yours is not an answer to mine.

This is pointless.

Your original comment was how could a false religion spread among the peasants so widely. I gave you an answer in the Christian context, which had an obvious focus on Roman paganism because that is the primary religion that Christianity supplanted.

Do you have an actual argument or not?

[The Alma Mater]

They had a reason to: to control others.

If I'm some medieval European ruler, it's an advantage for me to follow a religion where I can use that religion to argue that I'm chosen by God and all my opposition are heretics who'll be going to hell for disobeying God.

Most people wouldn't believe you unless you force it.

Possibly, but force is not often a problem for a medieval ruler.
In addition, if someone who is clearly superior to you believes something, many will copy.

[Jedi Council]

Most people wouldn't believe you unless you force it.

Possibly, but force is not often a problem for a medieval ruler.
In addition, if someone who is clearly superior to you believes something, many will copy.

Especially if you are an illiterate peasant who think believes in Witches and other nonsense.

[Lost Memories]

"Uhm ... Adam? Eve? You realize I can see through those fig leaves, right?" Maybe he was just pissed because they were tearing leaves off the Ficus.

Genesis 3:8-9

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, 'Where are you?'

They seemed to succeed in hiding. Where can I find one of these God-impervious trees that obscures his vision?

You have already been explained in the past how that part can be interpreted without any inconsistence to occur.
Being able to do something doesn't mean you must do that everytime.

But guess your priority is to be willfully ignorant.

[La Xinga]

Then yours is not an answer to mine.

This is pointless.

Your original comment was how could a false religion spread among the peasants so widely. I gave you an answer in the Christian context, which had an obvious focus on Roman paganism because that is the primary religion that Christianity supplanted.

Do you have an actual argument or not?

Yes. I said not only Rome.

Most people wouldn't believe you unless you force it.

Possibly, but force is not often a problem for a medieval ruler.
In addition, if someone who is clearly superior to you believes something, many will copy.

1. If force was needed to implement a religion, we would hear of it.
2. *Looks at America and Donald Trump*