Dawkins interview on some sort of God channel...

[old.Tohtori]

Can we agree that the important point is that everyone, atheist or believer, has equals rights and no one should dictate to either side what they should believe or not believe?

That's a lovely sentiment and one that i've been saying for a long time, but i duobt it'll go down so well since it would equal religious folk as normal humans.

Who knows, maybe i'm wrong there, but if past is any indication, well, in 5..4...

 

[Scouse]

Can we agree that the important point is that everyone, atheist or believer, has equals rights and no one should dictate to either side what they should believe or not believe?

And Kudos to prefect for his posts, the most sensibles ones in this thread.

I thought you'd like that Toht.

It's a sentiment born out of a lack of understanding of what's going on here.
Something like my mum would say: "awww kids, stop fighting, can't we all just get along?"


I've no interest in dictating what people can believe. However, I reserve the right to argue against people for holding those beliefs. Especially on a "forum" - which by definition is a place of debate.


Also - I disagree with Septima's assessment of prefect's posts - because by the nature of prefect being on the side of religious belief they're not "sensible" by definition. However, in defence of prefect I will say that he is definately the most open to debate of the religious "side" (unlike Turamber, who's too scared to even join in!).


In other news, fucking Jehova's Witnesses have been to my door THREE TIMES this week. I've never rocked up at someone's door and distrubed them in their house and gone "do you know, when you die that's it for you?"...

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'll try to explain something Scouse, do try to understand it and please do ask if there's something to clarify;

I'm open to discussion and debate on all things religious, i also do understand points in a fairly larger amount then you seem(note seem) to think. I'm not hardcore belief only, noo question kind of guy and perhaps it's my fault if i gave that impression.

I think we do have a profound problem in discussing though, as it seems our ways to discuss things differ a lot and that causes unnecessary friction.

If you compare, for example, my discussion with Krazeh, the tone is completely different and Krazeh even changed my POV on few issues, as well as helped me realise the certain language issues there in.

So in short; i'm not as closeminded as you think/ i might have seemed to be.

My own fault here is that i've gotten the impression of you being really adamant(ment?) in your views, which ironically is what you think of me too

On your added issue; jehovas witnesses are annoying for sure, but atleast i don't have to open the door for them. Anti-religion folk don't go around doors, but they do jump in at any given religious discussion to preach it's wrong.

 

[Wij]

Many years ago I used to pass the time between finishing work and waiting for friends to turn up at the pub by deliberately getting stopped by Hare Krishnas in Halifax and spending a good 15 minutes explaining why everything they said was wrong until they actually made excuses and walked off.

(They tried to persuade me that the Sun is closer than the Moon for instance. Had some fun with that one )

 

[Scouse]

Toht. Without venom - on the reason why we argue the way we do:


I am adamant about what I think about religion. It's because I have evidence to back me up.

If you could show me evidence to the contrary or describe how I am mistaken and allow me to go verify this you'll see me change my stance immediately (as has been evidenced in this very thread).

The reason we clash is that you provide no evidence to back up your beliefs.

I've also stated previously that I (personally) have taken the intellectual position that mild ridicule of people who hold belief with no evidence is not only acceptable but desirable. I've never hidden from this postion and have stated it openly.

If, for example, nath can come up with a good enough reason to show me that that stance is incorrect then I would admit my mistake and stop doing it.

However, religious people, by definition, don't do that.

On your added issue; jehovas witnesses are annoying for sure, but atleast i don't have to open the door for them. Anti-religion folk don't go around doors, but they do jump in at any given religious discussion to preach it's wrong.

Two things here.

1) Am I supposed to ignore the door? I can't tell whether they're Jehovas Witnesses from the sound of the doorbell.

2) This is a thread in a forum debating religious belief. We're here for the argument.

The problem in these type of threads stem from what I said above - religious people provide no evidence and cannot change their stance.

 

[Scouse]

Many years ago I used to pass the time between finishing work and waiting for friends to turn up at the pub by deliberately getting stopped by Hare Krishnas in Halifax and spending a good 15 minutes explaining why everything they said was wrong until they actually made excuses and walked off.

(They tried to persuade me that the Sun is closer than the Moon for instance. Had some fun with that one )

Nice Wij. I've done that a few times. When I wasn't working for a while I kept a set of mormons outside my front door for two hours. They wanted to leave at 15 minutes in.

They never came back

 

[old.Tohtori]

Toht. Without venom - on the reason why we argue the way we do:

I am adamant about what I think about r*snip*n I would admit my mistake and stop doing it.

However, religious people, by definition, don't do that.

You don't change your view based on what is said, because you ignore most of it. You can't even take any blame whatsoever, when it's evident that you're part of the issue. If you could see that, it'd help a ton.

For example, i pointed out the fault in discussing something you find boring, when you don't have to do it. Completely ignored as there was nothing to coutner that with.

Second;

Religious people do change their POV also, you screaming "they never change!" does not make it so. People may not change their view, but that coesn't mean all religious people don't either. As said before, Krazeh corrected me on some already.

Then we have something that made me want to post a facedesk picture;

Two things here.

1) Am I supposed to ignore the door? I can't tell whether they're Jehovas Witnesses from the sound of the doorbell.

2) This is a thread in a forum debating religious belief. We're here for the argument.

The problem in these type of threads stem from what I said above - religious people provide no evidence and cannot change their stance.

1: I did say they are annoying, i never claimed they are not, i never claimed you should ignore them. I said you don't have to open the door and s such, not listen to the bullsh*t.

2: I never said anything about this thread in what you quoted.

The problem you state there is a misconception and a big fault at your part, assuming everyone is X.

Ofcourse accepting that religious people(like me for example) could discuss things, could change a stance and could discuss things without preaching, is a danger to your stance so you won't accept it.

Rather ironic i'd say.

 

[Scouse]

Big snip there Toht. No actual adherence to the points I made.

Business as usual, I see.

 

[old.Tohtori]

The snip is to save space, not to snip away your points.

And since you only concentrate on that, now it's apt;

 

[Raven]

I am adamant about what I think about religion. It's because I have evidence to back me up.

Actually there is no proof that god does not exist, the same way there is no proof that he does exist.

The same can be said for the invisible pink unicorn ofc

 

[Wij]

You can't prove that something doesn't exist. That's why the onus of proof always has to be to prove that it does exist. Otherwise it's reasonable to assume it doesn't.

 

[Scouse]

Bob on there Wij.

Actually there is no proof that god does not exist, the same way there is no proof that he does exist.

The same can be said for the invisible pink unicorn ofc

This is true. And you made my answer for me. By definition that part of this religious debate is not testable.

There's nothing I disagree with and haven't already said in this thread there raven.

However, there are reams of evidence that "god" is simply a human construct.

 

[Wij]

Primary school children to be taught atheism in Blackburn | The Sun |Features

rofl

"You can't teach kids atheism until we've had several years to indoctrinate them in Christianity !!!"

nobber

 

[Scouse]

Roffle

They're going to teach them that atheism is the belief that there is no god too


I had to turn the website off (it is the Scum after all) but there was a point about Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy that made me wonder why I'd not used it in my arguments before:

Maybe they should explain that turning to atheism is like losing your belief in Father Christmas. You may believe in him fervently when you're young because everyone tells you he's real, presents turn up because of him (must be "evidence" - how else do they get there????!11/!1) there's loads of films about him and the whole world is different at christmastime.

But when you're older you catch mum putting out the prezzies and just stop believing.


Religious people need a Father Christmas Epiphany

 

[Krazeh]

Actually there is no proof that god does not exist, the same way there is no proof that he does exist.

This is such a nonsense argument to be honest. I really don't know why anyone thinks that stating there is no proof that something doesn't exist is somehow reason enough for people to believe that it does. Everything we know of any supernatural entity or deity you may choose to pick is entirely constructed by man and lack of proof of the non-existence of a entity/idea created by man means nothing.

Primary school children to be taught atheism in Blackburn | The Sun |Features

rofl

"You can't teach kids atheism until we've had several years to indoctrinate them in Christianity !!!"

nobber

Sometimes I wonder if these people are serious with the comments they make. Loved the apparent admission that children don't actually know anything about god or religion and that it's something they need to be taught about. Kinda proves the point about god/religion being entirely man made.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Question, just as that, no doubting etc etc(disclaimer bull);

What's the evidence on it being a human construct?

 

[Raven]

This is such a nonsense argument to be honest. I really don't know why anyone thinks that stating there is no proof that something doesn't exist is somehow reason enough for people to believe that it does. Everything we know of any supernatural entity or deity you may choose to pick is entirely constructed by man and lack of proof of the non-existence of a entity/idea created by man means nothing.

Re-read the post and then check its context.

I am as much of an atheist as the next sane person. All I said is that there is no evidence that there is no god, the same way there is no evidence that there is no invisible pink unicorn. i.e. its bullshit unless proven to be true.

 

[Wij]

Human construct ?

You could look at individual cases. The Bible is full of 'ret-cons' that have no historical basis. Why did Joseph go back to Bethlehem ? It was ret-conned into the story to make it fit with the Jewish 'prophecy'. There's not a shred of evidence that a Roman census ever required this. Joseph wasn't even FROM Bethlehem. It was somehow deemed that his ancestors were from there. wtfbbq ?!?

If you look at early editions of the Biblical books you can see lots of different versions of the story evolving over time. Only when the Romans took over the religion did a canon come into force.

I covered something similar on the character of Dhul Quarneyn (spellings vary) in the Koran on here a while ago.

 

[Krazeh]

Question, just as that, no doubting etc etc(disclaimer bull);

What's the evidence on it being a human construct?

Apart from anything else I would think that countless differing views on god/religion that have been put forward by human civilizations throughout the ages and the continuing differences on what is god, what he wants, what he's done, what you have to do to please him etc that exist both within and between religions is a bit of a clue that perhaps it's something man's come up with.

Re-read the post and then check its context.

I am as much of an atheist as the next sane person. All I said is that there is no evidence that there is no god, the same way there is no evidence that there is no invisible pink unicorn. i.e. its bullshit unless proven to be true.

Perhaps you should look at the way you constructed your post then because it would seem that Wij, Scouse and I all read it in the same light, i.e. an attempt to counter Scouse's assertion that he had evidence to back up his views on religion by stating that there is no proof for the existence or non-existence of god. If that was not the case then I apologise but my point still stands that using that argument in a serious sense is nonsense.

 

[Raven]

What's the evidence on it being a human construct?

Erm, because it is? Religion is based on either spoken or written stories passed down from one generation to the next. Its recorded and often edited by humans. Logic dictates that it was invented by humans.

Christianity is just a rehash of Egyptian sun worship, your particular brand of Thor worship (or whatever the fuck it is) is just a rehash of multitheism, probably taking its routes from a combination of paganism and the Roman/Greek belief system.

A story passed from generation to generation of humans is not proof of gods existence, its just proof that a story can be passed on.

 

[Raven]

...by stating that there is no proof for the existence or non-existence of god.

Erm...well there isn't is there?

Yes yes, I fully understand that it doesn't matter as it's impossible to prove that something does not exist and nobody needs to. The point stands. There is no proof that god does not exist.

 

[old.Tohtori]

A story passed from generation to generation of humans is not proof of gods existence, its just proof that a story can be passed on.

Never claimed it was proof of gods, wasn't even the question.

(Also partly Wij now)

The bible has been critisized for pages upon pages, but let's forget that.

The question meant here, what's the evidence that religion originally(way, way back), or sun worship and so forth, is a human construct?

"Because it is" is not evidence no more then "Because the bible says so".

Krazeh;

"Apart from anything else I would think that countless differing views on god/religion that have been put forward by human civilizations throughout the ages and the continuing differences on what is god, what he wants, what he's done, what you have to do to please him etc that exist both within and between religions is a bit of a clue that perhaps it's something man's come up with."

I wouldn't put that down as belief in a deity is a human construct, just that it had varied over the years and that there is evidence in humans tampering with things. Which ofcourse is obvious.

It could as much be called evidence on people not knowing what god wants.

(or whatever the fuck it is)

I'm assuming that wasn't an actual interest?

 

[Krazeh]

Erm...well there isn't is there?

Yes yes, I fully understand that it doesn't matter as it's impossible to prove that something does not exist and nobody needs to. The point stands. There is no proof that god does not exist.

I'm not disputing that. I was disputing it's value in any sort of argument/discussion. It's utterly meaningless that there's no proof that god doesn't exist and it has zero value as a rebuttal to a statement such as the one made by Scouse. Hence my comment of it being a nonsense argument.

 

[Scouse]

Amended your question without changing it:

what's the evidence that sun worship is a human construct?

Think about that for a second Toht, and you have your answer.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Actually you changed it quite a bit.

 

[Krazeh]

To be honest the evidence that it's a human construct is a simple as the complete and utter lack of evidence for any sort of intervention by a supernatural entity at any point in human history.

 

[old.Tohtori]

To be honest the evidence that it's a human construct is a simple as the complete and utter lack of evidence for any sort of intervention by a supernatural entity at any point in human history.

Now that's a bit dodging isn't it.

Would it be safe to say, that the influence of an outside force(complete lack there of) and the beginning of worship in itself, is basically equal to the god existing at all, where there's no evidence either way?

Ofcourse in that case, the burden of proof goes towards proving belief is a human construct, but that's besides the point

Just a bit questioning the merit of using "it's a human construct" as a valid point.

 

[Krazeh]

Now that's a bit dodging isn't it.

Would it be safe to say, that the influence of an outside force(complete lack there of) and the beginning of worship in itself, is basically equal to the god existing at all, where there's no evidence either way?

Ofcourse in that case, the burden of proof goes towards proving belief is a human construct, but that's besides the point

Just a bit questioning the merit of using "it's a human construct" as a valid point.

To be honest i'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, it makes little sense to me. But I disagree that my comment is dodging in any way. It's the answer to the question posed; if there's no evidence at all for the existence or intervention of a deity at any point but we have lots of stories about such things written by man then the evidence points to those deities being a human construct.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Changing it to an answer about out of world intervention is a bit dodging, as i asked about origins of deity worship.

It's not a ahrd concept really;

There's no evidence of god, either way.

I'm asking if there's no evidence on origins of worship, OR outerworld intervention in the same manner.

Ergo; saying worship is a human constrcut is equal to the god existing/not claims.

Only thing you can say is that men wrote stories of deities, that doesn't make outerworld intervention any less/more true, jsut that there are stories.

Unless, ofcourse as i said, there is evidence of the origins of worship that points to it being made up.

 

[Scouse]

Actually you changed it quite a bit.

And once again down come the religious blinkers.

You asked:

The question meant here, what's the evidence that religion originally(way, way back), or sun worship and so forth, is a human construct?

Directly asking what's the evidence that "religion originally way way back" is a human construct.

Sun worship is the earliest form of human religion. You know that, and that is why you asked and put it in your question.

I cut out the guff:

What's the evidence that sun worship is a human construct?

You know the answer. But can't acknowledge it because of what it means both for this argument and your own system of belief.

Once again /thread.



I'd advise others in this thread to demand the answer. It's the only way this discussion can move forward rather than go around in the circles it currently is.