Is man getting too big for the world?

[Leonard James]

To which the next obvious question is who wrote the God beliefs and who first told them?

Obviously they were written by men trying to find an explanation for everything. Who first told them? We can't ever know, since writing hadn't been invented then.

Actually a God is one of the obvious options when thinking about why there is anything anyway.

Yes, that is why so many fall for it. But it doesn't take much intelligence to realise that it's all guesswork.

If one does not self formulate a god hypothesis in one's thinking of why something rather than nothing then you have a malfunctioning brain I'm afraid.

That is a sign of you inability to think very far. The honest and most sensible answer is to admit to not knowing. Inventing answers is a childish game.

Another hypothesis that should naturally spring to mind of course is it all just popped out of nothing spontaneously.

I don't believe in magic.

[Leonard James]

You said 'The only reason for belief in "God" is what has been written or said about him by other people'. Clearly to believe in a specific god or God comes from what you hear, read etc but my point was that the reason why there is a tendency for belief is due to how the brain is wired to respond to information etc. Different people can hear, read the same info as a believer and not believe so there must be another reason underlying the process.

It is nothing more than a desire for answers. That is why it is more honest to admit that we don't know.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, if you go down the Jung road, religion is non-rational, or trans-rational, as some people say.   I think it's OK to say 'these symbols are valuable to me', but as with other stuff, you can't then say, 'they are valuable to everyone'.  And if you don't find them valuable, I will kill you.

And yet those death are symbols too, both by those who kill and those who die. Am reminded of St Stephano Rotundo

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santo_Stefano_al_Monte_Celio

Note to others, wigginhall and I are not doing argument here, just sparking discussion and thoughts for each other (just worried that it might freak some people out)

[Nearly Sane]

It is nothing more than a desire for answers. That is why it is more honest to admit that we don't know.

honesty is about the person. If someone thinks something it is more honest to say what they think whatever that is.

[Maeght]

It is nothing more than a desire for answers. That is why it is more honest to admit that we don't know.

Yes I'd agree, but the believer things they do know (well many do).

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Note to others, wigginhall and I are not doing argument here, just sparking discussion and thoughts for each other (just worried that it might freak some people out)

Refreshing old son, like a cool shower on a hot sunny day, Sane and Wigginhall, refreshes the parts other Posters cannot reach.

Gonnagle.

[Maeght]

As it should be.

[Leonard James]

Yes I'd agree, but the believer things they do know (well many do).

Yes, Faith is a funny thing that seems to completely eclipse the ability to question.

[Leonard James]

honesty is about the person. If someone thinks something it is more honest to say what they think whatever that is.

As long as they admit that is faith rather than fact.

[floo]

As long as they admit that is faith rather than fact.

Agreed.

[Maeght]

As long as they admit that is faith rather than fact.

Yep, no problem with that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Trollboy fails to grasp that the category "conjectures believed to be true as items of personal faith but about which the proponents can offer no method of any kind to distinguish his assertions of objective truth from nonsense" can be populated with "God" and "leprechauns" alike.   

You've omitted that my post is in response to your claim of equality in ridiculousness and you mentioned precision.
What is your warrant in making statements like that and then tarting up what you said by your above statements.

How can you possible say God and leprechauns are equally ridiculous? Please justify rather than merely asserting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Sane,

Refreshing old son, like a cool shower on a hot sunny day, Sane and Wigginhall, refreshes the parts other Posters cannot reach.

Gonnagle.

Agree about Nearly Sane who is an utter gem.........Wigginhall is OK I suppose.

[Nearly Sane]

Agree about Nearly Sane who is an utter gem.........Wigginhall is OK I suppose.

is there a Spoonerism here I am missing?

[Nearly Sane]

As long as they admit that is faith rather than fact.

But if they believe it is fact, surely the honest thing is to say that? I don't get what your idea of more honest is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't believe in magic.

Which is inconvenient since a universe which is eternal and uncreated or a universe that spontaneously creates it's self both need a bit of pixie dust if you think about it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, Faith is a funny thing that seems to completely eclipse the ability to question.

That's bollocks. You are one of the biggest dogmatists on the forum.

[bluehillside Retd.]

You've omitted that my post is in response to your claim of equality in ridiculousness and you mentioned precision.
What is your warrant in making statements like that and then tarting up what you said by your above statements.

How can you possible say God and leprechauns are equally ridiculous? Please justify rather than merely asserting.

In which Trollboy fails to grasp that his "God" and my "leprechauns" are precisely as ridiculous as each other as conjectures about objective truths for the same reason that Arsenal and Spurs are each precisely football teams, even though there are significant differences between them - colour of shirts etc. Bluehillside has now concluded that Trollboy is pathologically incapable ever of grasping that category error does not require the objects to be identical in every respect but only in respect of the issue relevant to the point being made (no method of any kind to get you from the subjective to the objective for "God" and "leprechauns" equally for example) and as there's no point even attempting to educate the ineducable I'll leave him to his trolling.

[bluehillside Retd.]

That's bollocks. You are one of the biggest dogmatists on the forum.

In which bluehillside notes wistfully that the Russian spring of an interesting exchange of ideas was nice while it lasted, albeit that the crushing fist of nihilism has now returned to squash all the flowers.

[Leonard James]

But if they believe it is fact, surely the honest thing is to say that? I don't get what your idea of more honest is?

Surely facts defines things that nobody can disagree with. Love and hate are facts ... there is evidence for both of them that nobody can deny. No gods come into this category ... they are simply beliefs.

[Leonard James]

That's bollocks. You are one of the biggest dogmatists on the forum.

So admitting that I don't know what caused the universe is dogmatic, is it?   

[Nearly Sane]

Surely facts defines things that nobody can disagree with. Love and hate are facts ... there is evidence for both of them that nobody can deny. No gods come into this category ... they are simply beliefs.

And if people are wrong about facts, their statement about  what they think they know is still honest. You are confusing wrong with lying

[Leonard James]

Which is inconvenient since a universe which is eternal and uncreated or a universe that spontaneously creates it's self both need a bit of pixie dust if you think about it.

It is clear that you haven't thought about it enough. The universe was caused by something (created is quite the wrong word), and if we ever find what caused it, I'm sure it won't be magic.

Magic is for magicians and children.

[Nearly Sane]

It is clear that you haven't thought about it enough. The universe was caused by something (created is quite the wrong word), and if we ever find what caused it, I'm sure it won't be magic.

Magic is for magicians and children.

Causation is an assumption not a fact, or are you being less than honest?

[Leonard James]

And if people are wrong about facts, their statement about  what they think they know is still honest. You are confusing wrong with lying

I don't think anybody but a fool lies about such things. As I said, facts are obvious truths to everybody ... beliefs are "truths" for only some.