Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: john on June 29, 2016, 06:21:36 PM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zcnm82p#zct79qt
According to the current position on this BBC poll 85% say yes.
-
The only problem being that there is religion in the World and we can't just wish it away.
Anyway, vote early and vote often. You can vote more than once simply by deleting your bbc.co.uk cookies.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zcnm82p#zct79qt
According to the current position on this BBC poll 85% say yes.
Brain dead voters voting on a brain dead question
-
It is interesting that you have misrepresented the poll in your thread title, john. I wonder whether that was intentional or just unconscious.
The question the poll was based on is
"Would the world be more peaceful without religion?"
Let's see. Were the 1st and 2nd World Wars to do with religion? Were the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars to do with religion? I am sure that if I were to go though all the main wars that have occurred over the centuries, many would have had as much to do with 'politics' as with 'religion'.
-
It is interesting that you have misrepresented the poll in your thread title, john. I wonder whether that was intentional or just unconscious.
The question the poll was based on is
"Would the world be more peaceful without religion?"
Well Hope, would the world be better off if it was more peaceful or not?
-
'' "Would the world be more peaceful without religion?"
Let's see. Were the 1st and 2nd World Wars to do with religion? Were the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars to do with religion? I am sure that if I were to go though all the main wars that have occurred over the centuries, many would have had as much to do with 'politics' as with 'religion'. ''
Substitute religion with culture !!! Look at IS for example - they so obviously want to be rid of western & non-Islamic culture & ANYTHING THEY consider not their version of Islam.
Nick
-
The world would be better off without religion if it were replaced with a universally accepted moral code of respect for other people and the environment.
There's the problem! :)
-
The problem, for me, is not religion per se but cretins that feel, in their own stupid ignorance, that THEIR way is superior to any others !!
Despite the fact that their way has been adapted to suit the place where their religion was 'founded' !
There will be similarities as basically humans are the same as regards most needs but when people from a different part of the world start issuing 'orders' to the rest about what to eat & wear, THEN we have problems.
And this has been going on for thousands of years so what's happening now is nothing new. I say that in case any saddos go on about the British Empire, etc etc BLAH BLAH !!! ;) ;) ;) :D
Nick
-
Well Hope, would the world be better off if it was more peaceful or not?
Not necessarily; humanity has developed a huge amount of important stuff - scientific/medical/industrial - off the back of wartime developments.
-
The world would be better off without religion if it were replaced with a universally accepted moral code of respect for other people and the environment.
There's the problem! :)
That is the problem, Len. For instance, I have a respect for humanity and the environment partly because I believe that they have a purpose, that there is a reason for their existence. There are others, including folk here, who don't believe there is such a purpose or reason. It can be difficult to develop a universal moral code when such diametrically different views of creation/the natural world are held.
-
Well Hope, would the world be better off if it was more peaceful or not?
Interesting question. It would certainly have been more peaceful in the 40's if we had just let Hitler take over, but would it be a better place now.
-
That is the problem, Len. For instance, I have a respect for humanity and the environment partly because I believe that they have a purpose, that there is a reason for their existence. There are others, including folk here, who don't believe there is such a purpose or reason. It can be difficult to develop a universal moral code when such diametrically different views of creation/the natural world are held.
Yes, Hope, and as a non-believer I recognise that difficulty.
However, I think that both of us believe the same as far as respect for others and the environment are concerned.
All we have to do now is convince the rest of humanity that we are right! :)
-
Religion has caused a lot of strife since humans created it. The extremes of Islam and Christianity being the worse offenders.
-
Religion has caused a lot of strife since humans created it. The extremes of Islam and Christianity being the worse offenders.
Created what Floo; strife? Do you have any evidence that humans created a belief in a deity (aka religion)?
-
Created what Floo; strife? Do you have any evidence that humans created a belief in a deity (aka religion)?
Oh for GODS sake Hopey here we go again.... Where do deities come from if not the human imagination? Are you related to Jeremy Corbyn? Your complete lack of an understanding of reality/stubborn refusal to consider it, would suggest so.
-
Created what Floo; strife? Do you have any evidence that humans created a belief in a deity (aka religion)?
Do you have any verifiable evidence humans didn't create all the gods, which they worship?
Wars have been fought in the name of religion throughout the centuries to the present day.
The bigotry and abuse displayed by some of the Christian fundies who believe the Bible to be literally true is EVIL!
-
Not necessarily; humanity has developed a huge amount of important stuff - scientific/medical/industrial - off the back of wartime developments.
Hurrah for wars then?
-
Wars have been fought in the name of religion throughout the centuries to the present day.
Wars have also been fought on purely tribal/political grounds 'throughout the centuries to the present day', Floo. Are you suggesting that they are more acceptable than religious wars?
-
Hurrah for wars then?
Good to see that you miss the point. War isn't always bad - for instance, there have been wars where one side has battled against what can only be called horrific evil - such as that against Hitler (note that I intentionally don't say the Germans as not all were supportive of him). Part of the fallout from such wars have been the development of things such as prosthetics, better medical care for patients, nuclear power (and I accept that that is a debatable example), etc.
The warfare itself may have horrendous, but then developments of all types can result in the death of their experimenters and developers.
-
Hope
May I ask if you can tell us why there are so many differing religions?
-
Do you have any verifiable evidence humans didn't create all the gods, which they worship? There would seem to be a part of the human make-up that involves worship. That might be of another humnan being, some
The bigotry and abuse displayed by some of the Christian fundies who believe the Bible to be literally true is EVIL!
No worse than some of the bigotry and abuse displayed by some of the fundamentalist atheists, Floo.
-
No, IMO it wouldn't be better off without religion because the problem is people.
You can get some very nasty non religious people who use political ideology instead.
It might be better off without people.
One day we will probably irreversibly poison our beautiful planet :(
-
Hope
May I ask if you can tell us why there are so many differing religions?
I think the answer to this question is that man began to attribute things he didn't understand to powerful forces, calling them spirits or gods.
It is obvious that this would have occurred in tribes that lived in many different parts of the world, so the "gods/spirits" would be whatever the imagination conjured up.
I'm sure that is the source of the diversity.
-
No, IMO it wouldn't be better off without religion because the problem is people.
You can get some very nasty non religious people who use political ideology instead.
It might be better off without people.
One day we will probably irreversibly poison our beautiful planet :(
It is true that dangerous people infest all parts of society. I think the only way to combat them is for the rest of us to unite and control them. Everything that divides us into smaller groups is counterproductive, and religion is one of those things.
-
No worse than some of the bigotry and abuse displayed by some of the fundamentalist atheists, Floo.
And what bigotry is that?
-
It is true that dangerous people infest all parts of society. I think the only way to combat them is for the rest of us to unite and control them. Everything that divides us into smaller groups is counterproductive, and religion is one of those things.
Religion is one of them, as you say, but it is humanly natural to divide into groups. We are individuals. Society can band together for a cause, that's very good, but each must be able to do their own thing in their own time, maybe with others who have similar interests. Life would be so stark without that, we're not clones.
-
I have just come across this on another forum and feel very sick that anyone one can use god as an excuse for their own evil depravity and have it endorsed by other Christian extremists!
https://jennifermayers.wordpress.com/2016/06/27/americas-martyr-no-race-mixing/
A white woman shot her daughters for going out with black lads, because it is ungodly for the races to mix!
-
Unutterably vile.
As a Christian I don't mind saying the mother (whose mental state we don't yet know so I say it cautiously in her case), and Jennifer Mayers, definitely, have committed sins which blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
Using religion as a respectable cover for committing any type of abuse is an unforgivable sin.
-
Unutterably vile.
As a Christian I don't mind saying the mother (whose mental state we don't yet know so I say it cautiously in her case), and Jennifer Mayers, definitely, have committed sins which blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
Using religion as a respectable cover for committing any type of abuse is an unforgivable sin.
I wonder if there is any poster on this forum who would support Mayer's comments?
-
I wonder if there is any poster on this forum who would support Mayer's comments?
I doubt it. She is just another example of how religion can addle a weak brain.
-
I wonder if there is any poster on this forum who would support Mayer's comments?
None.
-
None.
I can think of one who might do so.
-
Unutterably vile.
As a Christian I don't mind saying the mother (whose mental state we don't yet know so I say it cautiously in her case), and Jennifer Mayers, definitely, have committed sins which blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
Using religion as a respectable cover for committing any type of abuse is an unforgivable sin.
Quite agree, Brownie.
-
I can think of one who might do so.
I can think of one or two who would not agree in detail, but might well do in 'principal'.
-
I can think of one or two who would not agree in detail, but might well do in 'principal'.
One of the now banned posters would more likely than not have relished shooting the black lads!
-
I can think of one who might do so.
It doesn't do you any good to focus on the "one" whoever he is, and I've not seen him, nor does it give you any credit to mutter darkly about them, if they exist. I note you have posted again about a "now banned person", why mention them at all even if not by name. They are banned and a lot of us wouldn't know who you are talking about, nor want to.
I do not believe there is one person on here who would murder their children because their children slept with person or persons of a different race, even if they didn't much like it.
The woman in the link you posted must be completely deranged and I have no words to describe the Jennifer Mayers person who has written about it with praise. The pair of them would be up in arms to hear of an "honour killing" by someone of a different religion or race or both but that is precisely what they sanction. Murder is murder.
-
It doesn't do you any good to focus on the "one" whoever he is, and I've not seen him, nor does it give you any credit to mutter darkly about them, if they exist. I note you have posted again about a "now banned person", why mention them at all even if not by name. They are banned and a lot of us wouldn't know who you are talking about, nor want to.
I do not believe there is one person on here who would murder their children because their children slept with person or persons of a different race, even if they didn't much like it.
The woman in the link you posted must be completely deranged and I have no words to describe the Jennifer Mayers person who has written about it with praise. The pair of them would be up in arms to hear of an "honour killing" by someone of a different religion or race or both but that is precisely what they sanction. Murder is murder.
Ditto - well said
-
It doesn't do you any good to focus on the "one" whoever he is, and I've not seen him, nor does it give you any credit to mutter darkly about them, if they exist. I note you have posted again about a "now banned person", why mention them at all even if not by name. They are banned and a lot of us wouldn't know who you are talking about, nor want to.
I do not believe there is one person on here who would murder their children because their children slept with person or persons of a different race, even if they didn't much like it.
The woman in the link you posted must be completely deranged and I have no words to describe the Jennifer Mayers person who has written about it with praise. The pair of them would be up in arms to hear of an "honour killing" by someone of a different religion or race or both but that is precisely what they sanction. Murder is murder.
If you read my post I said that the now banned poster, would possibly have relished killing the black lads. This person is a self confessed racist and anti-gay bigot. Some will know well of whom I am talking!
-
Created what Floo; strife? Do you have any evidence that humans created a belief in a deity (aka religion)?
Again Hope, I've got to admit you never give up on this theme of yours?
ippy
-
Well - What proof do we have a deity has made contact with US ???
-
Well - What proof do we have a deity has made contact with US ???
None! That's why it's faith and not fact.
-
floo, I did read what you wrote, you missed my point.
I said: "I note you have posted again about a "now banned person", why mention them at all even if not by name."
Then in your reply you mentioned them again ::).
Anyway not that important I suppose, except maybe to me, so let's move on.
-
One of the now banned posters would more likely than not have relished shooting the black lads!
Like you would relish something happening to them?
When Floo doesn't like someone, out come the daggers.
Floo, when you don't approve of something you are pretty severe yourself.
We don't know what a banned poster thinks because they're not here to tell us.
-
If you read my post I said that the now banned poster, would possibly have relished killing the black lads. This person is a self confessed racist and anti-gay bigot. Some will know well of whom I am talking!
Someone ought to remove the knives from Floo before she hurts herself, or someone else.
:o
I think Floo "relishes" condemning all sorts of things, sees the world in black and white and can't see past her nose when it comes to subtleties.
Saying an ex poster here would relish murdering someone because of the colour of their skin is a step to far.
I can guess who Floo is referring to, not because of anything that person has said, but because of past things Floo has said about them and her attitude towards them.
-
Like you would relish something happening to them?
When Floo doesn't like someone, out come the daggers.
Floo, when you don't approve of something you are pretty severe yourself.
We don't know what a banned poster thinks because they're not here to tell us.
That was the point I was trying to make but am not sure it penetrated.
People are often banned, or suspended. I have been so myself, not on here. However not everyone who is banned is racist or violent, they could have been rude or something like that, lost their rag. So it seems unfair to talk about them in their absence, unless we have something positive to say about them. Based on that premise, it seems wrong to pick and choose whom we diss, eg this one was a bit nasty but that one was very nasty, so we can pull them apart, without mentioning names of course but people will know who is being talked about. It also shows us up to be vindictive if we do that and there's no place for that on forums.
-
If you read my post I said that the now banned poster, would possibly have relished killing the black lads. This person is a self confessed racist and anti-gay bigot. Some will know well of whom I am talking!
Said poster was certainly against the practice of homosexuality, but whether they were/are a bigot, let alone a racist, is very much open to debate, Floo.
-
Well they ain't here now so they can go off and be bigoted, racist or both elsewhere - or maybe even find a forum where everyone else feels the same and be happy ever after in their little world ;D.
-
Someone ought to remove the knives from Floo before she hurts herself, or someone else.
:o
I think Floo "relishes" condemning all sorts of things, sees the world in black and white and can't see past her nose when it comes to subtleties.
Saying an ex poster here would relish murdering someone because of the colour of their skin is a step to far.
I can guess who Floo is referring to, not because of anything that person has said, but because of past things Floo has said about them and her attitude towards them.
Rose you make it up as you go along. You don't know me at all!
I don't relish condemning all sorts of things, I don't see the world in black and white.
WRONG! That particular poster made a lot of very nasty racist and anti-gay comments on this forum, and the forum they currently occupy!
-
Shall we give up now and go and have a lie down?
-
Unutterably vile.
As a Christian I don't mind saying the mother (whose mental state we don't yet know so I say it cautiously in her case)
Will never know, she was shot dead by the police when she refused to give up her gun.
, and Jennifer Mayers, definitely, have committed sins which blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
I don't know about that but Jennifer Mayers seems to be barking or a troll or satire.
Mrs. Sheats was the picture of elegance and I know she would not want to have to explain to her friends why she was carrying around a yellow mixed baby that her promiscuous daughters had created.
Seriously?
-
Horrible isn't it? She presumed so much. Her girls may not have been promiscuous, just had boyfriends. They may have been clued up enough to have used birth control. She sounds barking but, as you said, she's not here to tell the tale now so we'll never know.
-
Horrible isn't it? She presumed so much. Her girls may not have been promiscuous, just had boyfriends.
Reading the various sources, I think there were a lot of reasons. For instance, she was getting divorced and she wanted her husband to suffer. One of her daughters was getting married and Christy wanted to ground her before the wedding or maybe to stop it, I don't know.
Christy had been treated for depression and had tried to commit suicide in the past. It's all desperately sad.
-
Very sad indeed jeremy and brings it home quite forcibly how shabbily people are treated who have mental health problems. If she was treated for depression the chances are her treatment consisted of medication and some of that is quite dangerous.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zcnm82p#zct79qt
According to the current position on this BBC poll 85% say yes.
Whereas the truth is that despite religion man would would still cause all these events of evil and probably far more without religion as a whole.
But the reality is that can man really have survived all this time without GOD?
Religion is not just about the god/s believed in it shaped history and today the newest religion formed from one man without any real sense of history or even basis in the real God has lead to modern day terrorism.
If the good things in people cease then things occur such as the Holocaust.
The world would not be better off without religion because it would simply come to an end because mans nature is so evil and the thirst and lust for power would eventually come to complete and utter chaos.
Without God there would be nothing today. Man would have destroyed everything. What power can a man really have over an earth he can do nothing to control?
God help us all when man eventually realises how vain it really is to gain the world and how it is worth nothing.
Your soul only God can save but man does not listen.
If a man is wise he would know that the world needs to know God not a religion.
That God is the only real explanation for anything here and now.
-
Whereas the truth is that despite religion man would would still cause all these events of evil and probably far more without religion as a whole.
But the reality is that can man really have survived all this time without GOD?
Religion is not just about the god/s believed in it shaped history and today the newest religion formed from one man without any real sense of history or even basis in the real God has lead to modern day terrorism.
If the good things in people cease then things occur such as the Holocaust.
The world would not be better off without religion because it would simply come to an end because mans nature is so evil and the thirst and lust for power would eventually come to complete and utter chaos.
Without God there would be nothing today. Man would have destroyed everything. What power can a man really have over an earth he can do nothing to control?
God help us all when man eventually realises how vain it really is to gain the world and how it is worth nothing.
Your soul only God can save but man does not listen.
If a man is wise he would know that the world needs to know God not a religion.
That God is the only real explanation for anything here and now.
Sing on, sweet bird! ;D
-
Sing on, sweet bird! ;D
Is that all you can come up with, Len? Doesn't auger too well for any argument you might want to put forward ;)
-
Is that all you can come up with, Len? Doesn't auger too well for any argument you might want to put forward ;)
Well , at least it is better than constantly repeating the negative proof fallacy! ::) ::)
-
Is that all you can come up with, Len? Doesn't auger too well for any argument you might want to put forward ;)
Like everybody else on this board, you know perfectly well that Sass is unable to cope with any post contradicting her beliefs, except by spouting endless Bible quotes.
'Arguments' are lost on her, and a complete waste of time and energy ... both of which commodities are fast disappearing in my case. :)
-
Hi everyone,
As I have posted before, religion has many uses. Before civil courts and organised policing were in place, religion was the only form of social control. Killing, robbing, sexual assaults were controlled by religion. Respect for elders, parents, teachers were prescribed. Love and fellowship was taught by religion. It also prescribed health, hygiene and behavioral norms. Marriage, family values etc were promoted and ensured by religion. Sexual behavior was controlled.
Religion served many purposes and has succeeded in civilizing humans. Without religions we humans would not be as civilized and humane as we are now. Social cohesion and brotherhood across physical boundaries was another of its very important contributions.
The fact that some people misuse religion is just an aberration. Anything can be misused.
It is possible that in some social groups, certain religions in their present form, may have outlived their usefulness. But in certain other groups they may still be necessary.
Even those groups where certain religions may have become unnecessary, certain other religions/philosophies may still hold a meaning and relevance.
So...religion is not one single and simple institution that we can dismiss off hand as useless. Religions are complex cultural institutions with complex social influence. They will continue to exist in one form or the other.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
As I have posted before, religion has many uses. Before civil courts and organised policing were in place, religion was the only form of social control. Killing, robbing, sexual assaults were controlled by religion. Respect for elders, parents, teachers were prescribed. Love and fellowship was taught by religion. It also prescribed health, hygiene and behavioral norms. Marriage, family values etc were promoted and ensured by religion. Sexual behavior was controlled.
Sriram, whilst I'm not exactly sure what role say Hinduism or Islam played in healthcare and education prior to the state taking on these aspects of our lives, I was surprised that you didn't include them in your otherwise interesting list of issues religion oversaw. In some cases, I'd also include the pursuance of science.
It is interesting just how much religion was involved in before states decided that they were their responsibility. Has this change actually seen an improvement in the processes used? Whilst understanding and therefore methods have improved, I'd question whether this is because of the change of who oversee them.
-
Hi everyone,
As I have posted before, religion has many uses. Before civil courts and organised policing were in place, religion was the only form of social control. Killing, robbing, sexual assaults were controlled by religion. Respect for elders, parents, teachers were prescribed. Love and fellowship was taught by religion. It also prescribed health, hygiene and behavioral norms. Marriage, family values etc were promoted and ensured by religion. Sexual behavior was controlled.
Religion served many purposes and has succeeded in civilizing humans. Without religions we humans would not be as civilized and humane as we are now. Social cohesion and brotherhood across physical boundaries was another of its very important contributions.
The fact that some people misuse religion is just an aberration. Anything can be misused.
It is possible that in some social groups, certain religions in their present form, may have outlived their usefulness. But in certain other groups they may still be necessary.
Even those groups where certain religions may have become unnecessary, certain other religions/philosophies may still hold a meaning and relevance.
So...religion is not one single and simple institution that we can dismiss off hand as useless. Religions are complex cultural institutions with complex social influence. They will continue to exist in one form or the other.
Cheers.
Sriram
Fair post, that.
-
CERTAIN religions we could ALL do well & better without....
Nick
-
Sriram, whilst I'm not exactly sure what role say Hinduism or Islam played in healthcare and education prior to the state taking on these aspects of our lives, I was surprised that you didn't include them in your otherwise interesting list of issues religion oversaw. In some cases, I'd also include the pursuance of science.
It is interesting just how much religion was involved in before states decided that they were their responsibility. Has this change actually seen an improvement in the processes used? Whilst understanding and therefore methods have improved, I'd question whether this is because of the change of who oversee them.
Hi Hope,
I have mentioned health and hygiene in my earlier post. Education is somewhat complex and not as straight forward.
What is education? Is it learning about the Big Bang, QM, about various kings and emperors of the past, Magna Carta, law, geography......etc. etc.? What is knowledge?
Its difficult to define. In today's organised and globalized world it may be a little easier to define in terms of the standard curriculum. But in the past it was not so easy. Information was not so easily available and not so easily shared around the world. Also, the relevance of such information to the lives of different people was not clear.
Britain was a relatively small country and it is possible that some sort of a common education system could have existed from medieval times. Not so in a huge land like India for example, which was composed of hundreds of different kingdoms, languages and cultures.
In earlier times, education generally meant moral education and vocational training in the work that the person wanted to do. Work training was normally passed on from father to son anyway.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Well , at least it is better than constantly repeating the negative proof fallacy! ::) ::)
Nah! Not even close. You see the negative proof theory is a fallacy on the part of the atheists.
It neither adds or takes away from the proof for Gods existence.
If the world itself is not enough to show something greater than us exists then really nothing will convince an atheist about the truth of God himself.
It is better to remain silent when an atheist, especially an atheist who knows nothing about God. :)
-
Nah! Not even close. You see the negative proof theory is a fallacy
What's the negative proof theory?
It neither adds or takes away from the proof for Gods existence.
It's impossible to take away from the proof of God's existence: there isn't any.
It is better to remain silent when an atheist, especially an atheist who knows nothing about God. :)
It's better to remain silent if you are ignorant about the topic in discussion, but it has never stopped you from posting.
-
What's the negative proof theory?
In regards religion should you really be discussing things you do not understand or have to ask about?
It's impossible to take away from the proof of God's existence: there isn't any.
It's better to remain silent if you are ignorant about the topic in discussion, but it has never stopped you from posting.
That's because unlike yourself, I am not ignorant in matters of faith and God.
But you certainly are as your post shows, had you remained silent your ignorance would not be so apparent.
As usual the uneducated in Faith matters resorts to sarcasm and insult a know proof of not being able to respond intellectually or with understanding of the subject at hand.
Your starting to repeat yourself because you have absolutely nothing new to argue with.
-
I am not ignorant in matters of faith and God.
Unfortunately NOT directly FROM God ?!!?!?!?
-
In regards religion should you really be discussing things you do not understand or have to ask about?
"Negative proof theory" is a phrase that I've never seen before - you just made it up so it's not surprising if I don't know what it is.
I do, however, know what the negative proof fallacy is and it is something that is perpetrated frequently by some people here, most notable Hope.
That's because unlike yourself, I am not ignorant in matters of faith and God.
You are ignorant in most subjects, why would we conclude you are not ignorant in matters of faith and God.
-
It is better to remain silent when an atheist, especially an atheist who knows nothing about God. :)
NOBODY knows anything about "God".
What you think you know about him is nothing more than silly stories invented by ignorant, early tribesmen who couldn't answer certain questions about origins. So rather than admit they didn't know, they invented "God" as an answer.
-
Nah! Not even close. You see the negative proof theory is a fallacy on the part of the atheists.
Nah! Not even on the same planet.
For a start I have never heard of the negative proof theory, what is that exactly?
Keeping with the negative proof fallacy however. It is a fallacy whether used by an atheist, theist, Hope or you.
However all I was pointing out was that Hope is one of the main users of it on this board.
That is a FACT whether you like it or not!
It is better to remain silent when a Sass, especially a Sass who knows nothing about fallacies!
::)
-
I am not ignorant in matters of faith and God.
Unfortunately NOT directly FROM God ?!!?!?!?
Your reply is absent of any proof of what you say as was your posts.
Hence the original post still applies and stands.
You are ignorant in matters of faith and God, your replies are the best evidence of this.
You must also remember that it is not a slight or slur against you. It is really just a simple fact.
-
Well , at least it is better than constantly repeating the negative proof fallacy! ::) ::)
Nah! Not even on the same planet.
For a start I have never heard of the negative proof theory, what is that exactly?
Keeping with the negative proof fallacy however. It is a fallacy whether used by an atheist, theist, Hope or you.
However all I was pointing out was that Hope is one of the main users of it on this board.
That is a FACT whether you like it or not!
It is better to remain silent when a Sass, especially a Sass who knows nothing about fallacies!
::)
You claim not to know about it, but use it as an argument when replying to Leonard.
Explain how you made such a comparison.
Are you really going to make yourself look ridiculous and even worse making replies in ignorance being proved?
PS. Good luck with proving a negative....
-
Sass your replies are ridiculous more often than not!
-
This describes what I understand to be 'negative proof theory'; I've heard the phrase used a few times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
-
This describes what I understand to be 'negative proof theory'; I've heard the phrase used a few times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
Are you sure you have heard the phrase 'negative proof theory', and not either just negative proof or negative proof fallacy?
And just to note the above makes no mention of negative proof theory, nor if were you to think it was would it make any sense in or of Sassy's post.
-
You claim not to know about it, but use it as an argument when replying to Leonard.
Explain how you made such a comparison.
Are you really going to make yourself look ridiculous and even worse making replies in ignorance being proved?
PS. Good luck with proving a negative....
Lets try this an baby steps to see if you can grasp anything, anything at all.
Please concentrate.
You claim not to know about it, but use it as an argument when replying to Leonard.
Two parts to this;
1. I claim not to know about the 'negative proof theory'.
You know that which YOU introduced to this thread in post #63 here;
Nah! Not even close. You see the negative proof theory......
(note that several other posters have since said that they also have no knowledge of the 'negative proof theory' (something which you have yet to explain) either, so not just me!)
2. I have not replied to Leonard on this thread - FACT.
(I replied to Hope, who was replying to Leonard and Hope does mention Len by name in his post, maybe that confused you - as you seem to be easily confused!)
Explain how you made such a comparison.
No need, as you were wrong, see above.
Are you really going to make yourself look ridiculous and even worse making replies in ignorance being proved?
I do believe that my reply is sufficient to show that YOU don't check your FACTS before replying and it is you who is showing yourself to be ridiculous by pursuing this matter.
However I shall let others be the judge of that.
PS. Good luck with proving a negative....
Which one?
-
Lets try this an baby steps to see if you can grasp anything, anything at all.
Please concentrate.
Two parts to this;
1. I claim not to know about the 'negative proof theory'.
You know that which YOU introduced to this thread in post #63 here;
(note that several other posters have since said that they also have no knowledge of the 'negative proof theory' (something which you have yet to explain) either, so not just me!)
2. I have not replied to Leonard on this thread - FACT.
(I replied to Hope, who was replying to Leonard and Hope does mention Len by name in his post, maybe that confused you - as you seem to be easily confused!)
No need, as you were wrong, see above.
I do believe that my reply is sufficient to show that YOU don't check your FACTS before replying and it is you who is showing yourself to be ridiculous by pursuing this matter.
However I shall let others be the judge of that.
Which one?
Seb, whilst I respect your (and most other people's) views on here, you will get nowhere with Sass until you find a way of cleansing her mind of the nonsense about "God" which she regards as irrefutable facts. :(
-
I'm afraid Sass's methodology is the infamous - 'LA LA LA I'm not listening'.
Best not to bother really ?!?!!? ;) ;) ::)
Nick
-
YAWN ZZZZZZZZ
-
As I said !!!!!! :) ;) ::)
-
As I said !!!!!! :) ;) ::)
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, prove he isn't to win your argument.
We will be waiting till the RETURN of Christ.
Guess what is coming? ::)
-
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, prove he isn't to win your argument
Is this an example of your mysterious 'negative proof theory '?
-
Sass must prove He IS, not us to prove Him NOT. SHE is the one making the claims & this is how she thinks she gets out of it ?!!?!?
Christians have been waiting for Christ for centuries & He's not arrived yet !!!! ;) ::)
Nick
-
Guess what is coming? ::)
Tomorrow. ::)
-
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, prove he isn't to win your argument.
We will be waiting till the RETURN of Christ.
Guess what is coming? ::)
You have no evidence that is true, so to state it as a positive FACT, rather than a belief, is a porkie.
-
You have no evidence that is true, so to state it as a positive FACT, rather than a belief, is a porkie.
Do you have any evidence for the primacy of science, Floo? Remember that using science to prove itself is no different from using religion to prove itself.
-
Do you have any evidence for the primacy of science, Floo? Remember that using science to prove itself is no different from using religion to prove itself.
Science has more credibility because it doesn't take things at face value as religion appears to do!
-
Do you have any evidence for the primacy of science, Floo? Remember that using science to prove itself is no different from using religion to prove itself.
It works!
-
Do you have any evidence for the primacy of science, Floo? Remember that using science to prove itself is no different from using religion to prove itself.
Then using one religion to prove itself is no different than using another religion to prove itself. But they can't all be correct though Hope, can they?
-
I suppose it really depends on what each religion states.
As far as I know, Hinduism doesn't seem to have the arrogance of, say, Islam, in stating there's NO other faith acceptable to God - THEIR god anyway.
-
Do you have any evidence for the primacy of science, Floo? Remember that using science to prove itself is no different from using religion to prove itself.
Science works, as demonstrated by your ability to post messages on a message board and have other people who are miles away see them.
That's all the evidence science needs.
-
I suppose it really depends on what each religion states.
As far as I know, Hinduism doesn't seem to have the arrogance of, say, Islam, in stating there's NO other faith acceptable to God - THEIR god anyway.
to paraphrase Religions don't state things, people do. Religions don't have anthropomorphic qualities and are observably not monolithic.
-
I suppose it really depends on what each religion states.
As far as I know, Hinduism doesn't seem to have the arrogance of, say, Islam, in stating there's NO other faith acceptable to God - THEIR god anyway.
But it does require its adherents to follow the diktats of the various deities (all 3 million of them) at the risk of suffering horrendous consequences. Hindu thought and adherence is fatalistic, which - as far as I am aware - neither Islam nor Judaism are, and Christianity certainly isn't.
-
Science works, as demonstrated by your ability to post messages on a message board and have other people who are miles away see them.
That's all the evidence science needs.
And the evidence that this is science and not merely the way in which God created the world to develop, is what? Where is the independent evidence that doesn't use science to prove itself?
-
And the evidence that this is science and not merely the way in which God created the world to develop, is what? Where is the independent evidence that doesn't use science to prove itself?
The computer you type your posts at would be completely impossible without science. The fact of its existence is evidence that science works.
-
Without the miracles of modern science we would be back in the dark ages. So many medical breakthroughs are thanks to science. Things which were deadly not that long ago can be cured now. Or would you prefer to rely on the hit and usually miss of prayer to get you well, Hope?
-
But it does require its adherents to follow the diktats of the various deities (all 3 million of them) at the risk of suffering horrendous consequences. Hindu thought and adherence is fatalistic, which - as far as I am aware - neither Islam nor Judaism are, and Christianity certainly isn't.
What on earth have you read & do you know Hinduism is actually a collection of religious thought & certainly is NOT a monolith such as Islam etc ???
-
What on eatth have you read & do you know Hinduism is actually a collection of religious thought & certainly is NOT a monolith such as Islam etc ???
Islam and etc aren't either
-
Sass must prove He IS, not us to prove Him NOT. SHE is the one making the claims & this is how she thinks she gets out of it ?!!?!?
Christians have been waiting for Christ for centuries & He's not arrived yet !!!! ;) ::)
Nick
What the bible foretold did arrive... Jesus Christ.
What Christ foretold and the Prophets have been happening....
It is you who have not arrived at the truth yet! All excuses and huff and puff on your part.
You don't know the bible or the teachings of the Prophets just rubbish and boring repetition of what other atheists have taught you.
At least God and Christ are original...
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zcnm82p#zct79qt
The poll now stands at 84% who think the world would be more peaceful without religion.
Just saying!!!!
-
Presumably most of the people voting that way don't have a religion anyway. I don't think many people renounce their faith out of an aspiration to make the world a better place.
-
What the bible foretold did arrive... Jesus Christ.
What Christ foretold and the Prophets have been happening....
It is you who have not arrived at the truth yet! All excuses and huff and puff on your part.
You don't know the bible or the teachings of the Prophets just rubbish and boring repetition of what other atheists have taught you.
At least God and Christ are original...
I reckon the stories surrounding Jesus were created to fit in with those so called 'prophecies'!
-
I reckon the stories surrounding Jesus were created to fit in with those so called 'prophecies'!
A suggestion that would have been pretty difficult to acheive, Floo. After all, a lot of what he is reported as having done would have been outside of the authors' mindsets.
-
A suggestion that would have been pretty difficult to acheive, Floo. After all, a lot of what he is reported as having done would have been outside of the authors' mindsets.
The human imagination is a wonderful thing!
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zcnm82p#zct79qt
The poll now stands at 84% who think the world would be more peaceful without religion.
Just saying!!!!
It would be interesting to know how the voting has gone on a daily or weekly basis since the poll was started. Has the 'Yes' vote jumped every time there has been an atrocity such as the events of Nice, or Munich (remembering that the latter was initially highlighted as 'terrorist-related' by the media, with the authorities back-tracking on that yesterday). It also suggests that many people have no idea of why some of humanity's worst wars even started - almost all to do with politics (such as the 2 World Wars, the Crimean War, the Korean War, the Boer War, the Sino-Japanese Wars, the American War of Independence and other independence campaigns - perhaps even the initial attempts to establish a Jewish state, etc.).
-
The human imagination is a wonderful thing!
I agree, but if you ever study it, it can only create things that are related to ideas already within the creator's mindset.
-
I agree, but if you ever study it, it can only create things that are related to ideas already within the creator's mindset.
Hmmmmmmmmmm! Anyway there is no way on earth the things attributed to Jesus are credible, surely he would have been quite a celeb among all the people around at that time not just his followers. His family didn't seem to rate him very highly.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zcnm82p#zct79qt
The poll now stands at 84% who think the world would be more peaceful without religion.
Just saying!!!!
Argumentum ad populum.
-
Hmmmmmmmmmm! Anyway there is no way on earth the things attributed to Jesus are credible, surely he would have been quite a celeb among all the people around at that time not just his followers. His family didn't seem to rate him very highly.
Precisely, Floo. Your argument that "there is no way on earth the things attributed to Jesus are credible" is - in part - evidence that they couldn't have been 'made-up' because, from a merely human perspective, they wouldn't have been either credible or part of the psyche.
-
Precisely, Floo. Your argument that "there is no way on earth the things attributed to Jesus are credible" is - in part - evidence that they couldn't have been 'made-up' because, from a merely human perspective, they wouldn't have been either credible or part of the psyche.
People don't come back from the dead, you have no evidence whatsoever Jesus was resurrected. As I said before why did so few people see him alive, why didn't he stick around instead of conveniently disappearing skywards? Where is he today, why can't we see him? If my grandson, at the age of two, realised the concept of Jesus still being alive somewhere was not on, when he asked his mother why she believed in Jesus as she couldn't see, hear or feel him, surely adults should question it too?
-
I imagine people who answered that poll have never been involved in a religion (I could be wrong about that, we'd need another poll to be certain). I've heard people sound off about "Religion", who talk about the Northern Ireland troubles, especially when we had terrorist problems over here, and currently about Islam. Also anything scandalous that appears in the news.
-
Presumably most of the people voting that way don't have a religion anyway. I don't think many people renounce their faith out of an aspiration to make the world a better place.
Would not really have a faith if they did that.
Nor can anyone with faith allow such a thing.
You don't see now Torridon, but in time you will see when evil tries to rid the world of religiion.
Then you will lose your freedom and you will be told what to do and when and no choice left.
And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
Can you not see that this is all about the bringing about of the end?
Sometimes the signs are not easy to see.
-
Sometimes the signs are not easy to see.
a mark on everyone's forehead would be hard to miss!?
-
a mark on everyone's forehead would be hard to miss!?
:D
-
A suggestion that would have been pretty difficult to acheive, Floo. After all, a lot of what he is reported as having done would have been outside of the authors' mindsets.
You don't half talk some bollocks.
-
I agree, but if you ever study it, it can only create things that are related to ideas already within the creator's mindset.
What in the gospels would have been outside the authors' mindsets. Please give examples and the approach you used to determine the authors' mindsets. In your answer, take into account that nobody knows who the authors actually were.
-
What in the gospels would have been outside the authors' mindsets. Please give examples and the approach you used to determine the authors' mindsets. In your answer, take into account that nobody knows who the authors actually were.
OK, the 1st century Jewish understanding of the Messiah was someone who would come as a politico-military leader. This had been the case since the 5th or 6th century BC - but prior to that, the concept had been far more of a spiritual leader. Unless the authors of the Gospels had that level of theological training (which is unlikely in view of the dating of the material), that isn't something that would have been in the mindset of the early Jewish church leaders - fishermen and tax-collectors, etc.
Secondly, whilst the Jews did have an understanding of resurrection, it was not the 'instant' type that is recorded with the resurrection of Lazarus or Jesus, but something that went hand in hand with the end times.
That's two to start with.
-
OK, the 1st century Jewish understanding of the Messiah was someone who would come as a politico-military leader. This had been the case since the 5th or 6th century BC - but prior to that, the concept had been far more of a spiritual leader. Unless the authors of the Gospels had that level of theological training (which is unlikely in view of the dating of the material), that isn't something that would have been in the mindset of the early Jewish church leaders - fishermen and tax-collectors, etc.
Secondly, whilst the Jews did have an understanding of resurrection, it was not the 'instant' type that is recorded with the resurrection of Lazarus or Jesus, but something that went hand in hand with the end times.
That's two to start with.
Hmmmmmmmmmm! How do you know what the Jews thought about such matters so long ago?
-
The Jewish people today have great respect for their history and traditions and which have been carried down from generation to generation. Even those who are not religious will know a lot about it so it isn't surprising that they have an idea of how Jewish people felt way back in time, and we have learned it from them.
-
OK, the 1st century Jewish understanding of the Messiah was someone who would come as a politico-military leader. This had been the case since the 5th or 6th century BC - but prior to that, the concept had been far more of a spiritual leader.
So what? Unless you are claiming that, in the first century, nobody was aware of the concept of a spiritual messiah, your argument doesn't float.
Unless the authors of the Gospels had that level of theological training (which is unlikely in view of the dating of the material), that isn't something that would have been in the mindset of the early Jewish church leaders - fishermen and tax-collectors, etc.
This is just an assertion. You can't say that nobody knew of the concept of a spiritual messiah. Clearly, they did or nobody would have come up with the idea.
Secondly, whilst the Jews did have an understanding of resurrection, it was not the 'instant' type that is recorded with the resurrection of Lazarus or Jesus,
Really? I don't believe that for a minute. Got any evidence that it was impossible for the people who lived in the area to think of an "instantaneous" resurrection. Don't forget they would have been exposed to Greek, Roman and Egyptian mythology all of which contained such resurrections.
-
The Jewish people today have great respect for their history and traditions and which have been carried down from generation to generation. Even those who are not religious will know a lot about it so it isn't surprising that they have an idea of how Jewish people felt way back in time, and we have learned it from them.
Which would mean that Hope's idea that they had forgotten about the spiritual messiah thing is completely fallacious.
-
The Jewish people today have great respect for their history and traditions and which have been carried down from generation to generation. Even those who are not religious will know a lot about it so it isn't surprising that they have an idea of how Jewish people felt way back in time, and we have learned it from them.
so given that, and given that they don't think Christianity is true, then by that logic you think Hope's position that it was outside the writer"s mindset is incorrect.
(BTW I note that Hioe has ignored the whole question of the lack of knowledge about who wrote the Gospels)
-
(BTW I note that Hioe has ignored the whole question of the lack of knowledge about who wrote the Gospels)
Indeed. It is entirely possible that some of the gospel writers weren't Jewish and it is a racing certainty that they were exposed to cultures and ideas from outside of the Jewish World. There is an argument, for example, that Mark lived in Rome. If that was the case, he would have been well aware of a lot of non-Jewish religious and philosophical ideas.
Also, whoever wrote John was well aware of Greek philosophical ideas like The Logos.
-
So what? Unless you are claiming that, in the first century, nobody was aware of the concept of a spiritual messiah, your argument doesn't float.
The Jews took a great interest in education and educating their children, but until they were 12 or 13, this was concerned with preparing them for everyday life. It was only after that age, when a select few studied more complex and arguably more abstract things that the Torah and other such material was studied deeper.
This is just an assertion. You can't say that nobody knew of the concept of a spiritual messiah. Clearly, they did or nobody would have come up with the idea.
I never said that "nobody knew of the concept of a spiritual messiah" - that's you putting words on my fingertips (as it were). What I said was that the ordinary person wouldn't have gone into that theological depth in their education.
Really? I don't believe that for a minute. Got any evidence that it was impossible for the people who lived in the area to think of an "instantaneous" resurrection. Don't forget they would have been exposed to Greek, Roman and Egyptian mythology all of which contained such resurrections.
I am fully aware that such cultures had such beliefs, but let's take our own context. I don't know the distance between your home and your nearest Hindu or Muslim family, but just how much do you know about such people's understanding and belief systems? Then remember that the Jews - especially the ordinary people of Jesus' time - would have been far less interested in non-Jewish thinking than we are of anything comparable.
-
Which would mean that Hope's idea that they had forgotten about the spiritual messiah thing is completely fallacious.
Well it is an idea. I don't know if it is fallacious or not. "Where there are two Jews, there are three opinions"; no doubt that has always been so. Today there are Jewish groups who believe the Messiah has been on earth and physically died, they are highly spiritual, believe in an afterlife and are preparing for Armageddon. Others, equally sophisticated, believe quite differently. The ancient stories and traditions have been handed down to each generation but, like many religious groups, they part company because different emphases are placed on the ancient teachings.
We'd really have to ask some Jewish people, a pity we don't have some posting on here, but I can guarantee we'd get several answers.
Christians place different emphases on Jewish teachings, some of which would be unrecognisable to Jewish people.
-
Well it is an idea. I don't know if it is fallacious or not. "Where there are two Jews, there are three opinions"; no doubt that has always been so. Today there are Jewish groups who believe the Messiah has been on earth and physically died, they are highly spiritual, believe in an afterlife and are preparing for Armageddon. Others, equally sophisticated, believe quite differently. The ancient stories and traditions have been handed down to each generation but, like many religious groups, they part company because different emphases are placed on the ancient teachings.
We'd really have to ask some Jewish people, a pity we don't have some posting on here, but I can guarantee we'd get several answers.
Christians place different emphases on Jewish teachings, some of which would be unrecognisable to Jewish people.
Well Hope is claiming one thing about Jewish people, and logically you contradicted it, so maybe you need to discuss the fact that you have pushed the idea that he us wrong.
-
Hope may be wrong, no-one can be certain however much research they do. That's why there are so many firmly held opinions.
-
Hope may be wrong, no-one can be certain however much research they do. That's why there are so many firmly held opinions.
except your position argues that he is wrong in principle!
-
OK, the 1st century Jewish understanding of the Messiah was someone who would come as a politico-military leader. This had been the case since the 5th or 6th century BC - but prior to that, the concept had been far more of a spiritual leader. Unless the authors of the Gospels had that level of theological training (which is unlikely in view of the dating of the material), that isn't something that would have been in the mindset of the early Jewish church leaders - fishermen and tax-collectors, etc.
Secondly, whilst the Jews did have an understanding of resurrection, it was not the 'instant' type that is recorded with the resurrection of Lazarus or Jesus, but something that went hand in hand with the end times.
That's two to start with.
Unfortunately Hope you have not allowed for the possibility that some of those people broke out of their mindsets.
It does happen you know!
-
except your position argues that he is wrong in principle!
Yes that is my position. However it isn't written in tablets of stone!