Dawkins interview on some sort of God channel...

[old.Tohtori]

Actually i don't know that sun worship is the earliest form of religion. You seem to do and i think you have evidence of this, yes?

Hope so.

Sun worship was an example among others of worship.

Now do you actually have the ability to answer a question, instead of turning everything into that worn out insult attempt?

FYI; you've claimed /thread twice now, yet fail to realise you can't call it on yourself.

 

[Scouse]

... "I don't know that the earliest form of worship that man has any evidence for is the earliest form of worship"


You're right toht. There may be something else out there, but we don't have any evidence at all for it, but that something may exist that we've never, ever, heard of, ever, is the important thing eh?


Q.E.D. /thread /win /fucking hate religious bullcrap shite /sameargument

/butgladtohtmanagedtocoverhimselfenoughsohecankeephiscircularargumentgoingkthxbye


Edit: why the gap in that long text string?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well, seems that you are capable of producing the necessary vocal variations, but lack the ability to propel yourself accordingly.

... "I don't know that the earliest form of worship that man has any evidence for is the earliest form of worship"

I did say that i don't know if sun worship is the earliest and asked to produce the evidence to back that claim up.

I also didn't ask if "something else is out there", i asked for evidence on the early worship being invented.

/fucking hate religious bullcrap shite /sameargument

Again, have to ask why you continue to discuss/read it then, since you have a VERY obvious choice to that action.

 

[Scouse]

It's your turn to answer some questions or provide some *any* evidence.

All you do is hide and then change the argument.

 

[Krazeh]

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

Actually you didn't. You asked what the evidence was for god/religion being a human construct. That was what I answered.

It's not a ahrd concept really;

There's no evidence of god, either way.

I disagree, I think there's plenty of evidence for hte non-existence of god as opposed to none for hte existence of god.

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.

As far as I understand it there has been work done on how/when belief systems became apparent in human civilizations but none of it points to there having been a supernatural intervention. It can be explained through entirely natural mechanisms. So we have evidence we can point to demonstrate that god/religion would be things created by man but none for it being the work of a supernatural entity.

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.

The fact that there's stories alone doesn't do anything to make the intervention of a supernatural entity more or less true. It's when you examine the content of the stories, the lack of any other evidence for the intervention of a supernatural entity, our understanding of how evolution of hte human brain and psychology could lead to the formation of a belief system etc that we can begin to say that it's probably not true and that god/religion is a human construct.

 

[old.Tohtori]

It's your turn to answer some questions or provide some *any* evidence.

All you do is hide and then change the argument.

Well i haven't seen any answers/evidence yet, or any question that requires me to provide evidence.

Do give some questions, i'm rather willing to answer them if i'm in a position to do so.

For example your, i think, question that "isn't it obvious that sun worship is man invented", i have to say i don't know. I have evidence neither this way or that.

It might be logical that people just thought the sun is a god, but then it comes back to "how did they know what a god is?".

Did some guy, just one day in a tribe, say "Mehala moona dudu ipipuu!", meaning "You know guys, there might be a big dude that started all this.", but i can't by any measure say it IS what happened.

The very basics of worship is an open book and that, as said, is as evidence lacking as a deity itself.

Actually you didn't. You asked what the evidence was for god/religion being a human construct. That was what I answered.

Well i asked(then defined more) on the basics of belief/religion, yes, but you didn't actually answer that, but put forward an example of lack of evidence in outer woorld intervention. Not exactly the same, while in the same ballpark.

I disagree, I think there's plenty of evidence for hte non-existence of god as opposed to none for hte existence of god.

I thought there was none, as stated before on the thread. If there is, wuold love to hear it.

As far as I understand it there has been work done on how/when belief systems became apparent in human civilizations but none of it points to there having been a supernatural intervention. It can be explained through entirely natural mechanisms. So we have evidence we can point to demonstrate that god/religion would be things created by man but none for it being the work of a supernatural entity.

No, it doesn't point to a supernatural intervention, but it neither points to it being a human invention. If it can be explained via natural mechanisms, have to ask for you to elaborate on that.

The fact that there's stories alone doesn't do anything to make the intervention of a supernatural entity more or less true. It's when you examine the content of the stories, the lack of any other evidence for the intervention of a supernatural entity, our understanding of how evolution of hte human brain and psychology could lead to the formation of a belief system etc that we can begin to say that it's probably not true and that god/religion is a human construct.

Never claimed it made anything more true. As stated above, would like to read some of this natural evolution of belief systems.

I think there's a bit of a problem here, since me asking for evidence on something being a human construct, does NOT mean that i'm claiming it's something else.

 

[Raven]

Monotheism sun worship was not the first form of religion but it is where Christianity came from. They understood that the sun was important and they didn't want to piss it off so they worshipped it. Obviously we now know that the sun is just a great big dumb ball of gas. It isn't trying to bone the moon and it most certainly couldn't give a toss whether or not we do what some creep in a frock tells us to do every Sunday.

People came up with the idea of their being gods, or spirits simply as a way to explain things that today we know are caused by natural events, such as the sun moving across the sky or any number of other perfectly explainable events, birth, death, the change in the seasons, weather, natural disasters etc etc

Anyway, pretty much every event attributed to god or a set of gods can be explained by science and our growing knowledge as a species. Anything else, for example the bullshit in the old testament or any of the myths surrounding Nordic or Roman/Greek gods are just either made up stories or events so twisted by time that they are totally unreliable as evidence.

In short there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of any god or gods, all there are is stories and easily explained phenomena.

There is exactly the same amount of evidence for the existence of Peter Pan as there is for any god.

 

[old.Tohtori]

As said, never claimed there is evidence of any deity. Don't even know where that came from to be honest.

Where christianity came from means f*ck all in regards to the discussion presented though.

*looks at watch*

Yeap, that time again.

 

[Krazeh]

As said, never claimed there is evidence of any deity.

If you accept there is no evidence for the existence of any deity how can you continue to argue that god/religion is a human construct? If deities don't exist how could it be anything other?

 

[old.Tohtori]

If you accept there is no evidence for the existence of any deity how can you continue to argue that god/religion is a human construct? If deities don't exist how could it be anything other?

Think you mean "how can you continue to argue that god/religion ISN'T a human construct".

To which the answer is simple(either way really), i don't. I'm asking for evidence of it being a human construct.

This doesn't mean i believe it's made by fairies, or that it sprung by itself from the hot fiery pits of magma in 25kBC, just asking for the basis of a claim that is very promenant as an argument.

If deities were proven to not exist, then i could say that sure, it's a human construct for sure. But since it's uncertain either way, so is the basics of belief.

 

[Scouse]

If deities were proven to not exist, then i could say that sure, it's a human construct for sure.

You know, for a fact, that deities can never be proven to not exist. Ever. Why do you insist on using this shite in your arguments?

As said, never claimed there is evidence of any deity.

Then why do you believe there is?

 

[Wij]

We've given reasons to think that Religion was probably invented by humans (since there's no evidence it came from anywhere else) but you're asking for a standard of evidence you can't reasonably expect by restricting it to actual evidence related to the original occurances of Religion in human society way before recorded history. That's why I gave examples of more recent religions where there is some evidence but to ask for it way back in time where we don't have any evidence of anything is just pointless.

 

[Bugz]

Toht you've officially hit your circular argument dude. That last post secured it.

 

[Krazeh]

Think you mean "how can you continue to argue that god/religion ISN'T a human construct".

You're right, I did mean that.

To which the answer is simple(either way really), i don't. I'm asking for evidence of it being a human construct.

Which you've been given. And there's plenty more you can find by looking at the evolution of cognitive functions in the human brain and human psychology.

This doesn't mean i believe it's made by fairies, or that it sprung by itself from the hot fiery pits of magma in 25kBC, just asking for the basis of a claim that is very promenant as an argument.

See above.

If deities were proven to not exist, then i could say that sure, it's a human construct for sure. But since it's uncertain either way, so is the basics of belief.

The fact that there's no concrete proof either way doesn't make the 2 claims an equal 50-50 probability of being correct. On one hand you have plenty of evidence to suggest that humans are very good at coming up with stories, evidence from evolution and psychology, the lack of evidence for the existence or intervention of a supernatural deity etc and on the other hand you have nothing. This clearly pushes the balance of probability in a certain direction and imo far enough to no longer consider the other direction a plausible claim.

 

[Scouse]

He'll ask more questions and hide some more, but not answer, or provide any justification for his beliefs.


To be fair to him. He can't provide the justification because it doesn't exist. But he won't admit that.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You know, for a fact, that deities can never be proven to not exist. Ever. Why do you insist on using this shite in your arguments?

Umm, if i knew that for a fact, then it would be proven that there are none.

Then why do you believe there is?

Could answer that with "for sh*ts and giggles", or with "why not?", but i think, most accurately, is this;

(Would have to point out that i'm not actively worshipping/believing in things, just part of the way of life. But that's more towards what it entails, then the actualy question.)

i find the pantheon concept to be fitting(more so then christianity), with gods not giving a f*ck and so forth. That's an easy one really.

Also, i find that since i like the viking way of life, it's a bit appropriate to adjust thinking to that scale too(not completely, but just a tad).

And then there's the "why not" aspect. If i find this to be the most logical afterlife scenario(since i believe in an afterlife), and it fits my ways, it's not exactly getting in the way of my every day life and thinking(no matter how much you'd like to think so ).

Does that answer it, or do you want more?

 

[old.Tohtori]

We've given reasons to think that Religion was probably invented by humans (since there's no evidence it came from anywhere else) but you're asking for a standard of evidence you can't reasonably expect by restricting it to actual evidence related to the original occurances of Religion in human society way before recorded history. That's why I gave examples of more recent religions where there is some evidence but to ask for it way back in time where we don't have any evidence of anything is just pointless.

Exactly, it is as pointless to claim it is a human construct in a discussion, as it is to claim either way of a god existing. That's what i was asking.

Toht you've officially hit your circular argument dude. That last post secured it.

Problem ofcourse being; i asked a question, not arguing anything

Which you've been given. And there's plenty more you can find by looking at the evolution of cognitive functions in the human brain and human psychology.

See above.

The fact that there's no concrete proof either way doesn't make the 2 claims an equal 50-50 probability of being correct. On one hand you have plenty of evidence to suggest that humans are very good at coming up with stories, evidence from evolution and psychology, the lack of evidence for the existence or intervention of a supernatural deity etc and on the other hand you have nothing. This clearly pushes the balance of probability in a certain direction and imo far enough to no longer consider the other direction a plausible claim.

(above answers explains a bit, so not repeating it)Think that comes down to opinion then. How far do you have to go to personally choose a side, how much more evidence do you require and so forth.

I doubt there's a norm for things that are highly questionable either way, to be marked as one sided.

So the argument here comes down to;

There is enough evidence of it being a human construct, if you yourself think there is.

Which i find no more viable(regarding evidence/proof) to be used in a discussion, as "there's no proof of god".

Not saying you shouldn't use them, just that they hold no more ground then other personal opinions.

Oh and Scouse; think you'll find i've answered plenty, especially compared to you

 

[nath]

I think, Toht, you're confusing evidence with proof. When you've refuted evidence on this thread, your angle is simply that it doesn't prove anything. We've already ascertained that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of a deity, but one can have evidence to suggest it's a human construct. That doesn't mean there won't be counter arguments - "dinosaurs were placed to test our faith" for example but it's still evidence.

Here's some evidence that belief in a deity is a human construct:

Cargo cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wij]

Exactly, it is as pointless to claim it is a human construct in a discussion, as it is to claim either way of a god existing. That's what i was asking.

It's not pointless. There's plenty of evidence to suggest current religions are a human construct. That gives us plenty of reason to assume that "the first religions" were human constructs. Neither of us have first-hand evidence on the matter but the second-hand evidence is all on my side.

I don't see the point in arguing this though, either way. Any "original religions" are not what you or I believe and won't be what ANYONE believes now.

 

[Krazeh]

(above answers explains a bit, so not repeating it)Think that comes down to opinion then. How far do you have to go to personally choose a side, how much more evidence do you require and so forth.

Frankly when there's no evidence whatsoever for one side then it doesn't take a huge amount to push it to the other side. And in this case there's more than enough.

I doubt there's a norm for things that are highly questionable either way, to be marked as one sided.

I don't think it's highly questionable either way. We have a pretty good understanding of how and why belief systems could/would arise in the human mind and it can all be explained through entirely natural processes. The only highly questionable part is the requirement for hte existence/intervention of a supernatural deity.

So the argument here comes down to;

There is enough evidence of it being a human construct, if you yourself think there is.

Which i find no more viable(regarding evidence/proof) to be used in a discussion, as "there's no proof of god".

Not saying you shouldn't use them, just that they hold no more ground then other personal opinions.

Of course they hold more ground. An opinion backed up with fact and/or evidence to support said opinion is clearly worth more in an argument or discussion than an opinion which has nothing to support it. The simple fact is there's plenty of available evidence to support a claim that god/religion is a human construct, there is none to support the claim that it's not.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Here's some evidence that belief in a deity is a human construct:

Cargo cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for actually answering the question.

Krazeh; everything on a forum is an opinion without facts, until you produce something. I've been told this a million times, so it applies to all of you as well

Ergo; taking picks on which is/isn't relevant on a discussion, is not a viable route to take as it only brigns a burden of producing evidence on every little tidbit you say.

The fact this simple question; "what evidence is there of it being a construct of man" produced all this, accusations and questioning why i believe the opposite(with nothing pointing that i do), tells a nice lil story too.

 

[Calaen]

YouTube - Louise - Let's Go Round Again - Official Video (HQ)

Oh yeah !!

 

[old.Tohtori]

It's quite simple Calaen;

Queston asked.
Question answered(nath proved that rather nicely).

If you have a misconception that there's a trolling, bullsh*t, trap, hidden agenda, prejudging etc going on, you will have long arguments that go nowhere.

 

[Krazeh]

Thanks for actually answering the question.

Krazeh; everything on a forum is an opinion without facts, until you produce something. I've been told this a million times, so it applies to all of you as well

Except for when people do provide facts and/or evidence, as happens on numerous occasions.

Ergo; taking picks on which is/isn't relevant on a discussion, is not a viable route to take as it only brigns a burden of producing evidence on every little tidbit you say.

Producing evidence for every little tidbit probably would be excessive but needing provide evidence to back up certain claims, especially ones which could be seen to be nonsensical or preposterous, is something people should be expecting to do.

The fact this simple question; "what evidence is there of it being a construct of man" produced all this, accusations and questioning why i believe the opposite(with nothing pointing that i do), tells a nice lil story too.

The only story it tells is your refusal to accept that there is plenty of evidence for god/religion being a human construct despite being given plenty of examples of the evidence. And that your belief in the opposite claim has absolutely no factual/evidential basis.

 

[Calaen]

It's quite simple Calaen;

Queston asked.
Question answered(nath proved that rather nicely).

If you have a misconception that there's a trolling, bullsh*t, trap, hidden agenda, prejudging etc going on, you will have long arguments that go nowhere.

I'm yet to find a thread you've posted on going anywhere Other than around

 

[old.Tohtori]

The only story it tells is your refusal to accept that there is plenty of evidence for god/religion being a human construct despite being given plenty of examples of the evidence. And that your belief in the opposite claim has absolutely no factual/evidential basis.

You see, there's the problem in a nutshell;

1: Nate was first to actually provide evidence outside "What i said to you". The rest is like me saying "Well the ancient batagonians did start off from a balloon back in 10kBC."

2: I don't hold a belief in the opposite claim, i asked a question.

If you can't see that, no wonder there's a problem.

I'm yet to find a thread you've posted on going anywhere Other than around

I've yet to find a thread where you post anything except that

 

[old.Tohtori]

But since it's so circular now(evidently ), here's another sort of related question;

Do people actually think they can convert an atheist/agnostic/religious person in these kind of conversations?

It's not like Krazeh over there will suddenly go "Oh yes, now i see, vikigns, i'm in!", or that i'll go "Hmm, yeap, think i'm an atheist now."

And even if that would happen, what would the reaction be?

If i said that i'm now an atheist, you lot are right and i was wrong, do you think it would be candies and flowers, or do you think that it would result in some more mudslinging and banality?

 

[Scouse]

Umm, if i knew that for a fact, then it would be proven that there are none.

Fixed:

I take it back. I used to think you didn't get it. Now I'm happy that you're probably a troll or doing it for attention.

All the questions you have asked in this thread have been answered perfectly well and in many different ways but you continue to ask the same question in different ways, pick on peoples use of language to distort things, hide behind more questions, give answers when pressed that are so vague as to be meaningless.

T.R.O.L.L. or desparate need for attention. One of the two.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Think you should do one of the several things you've said;

- Ignore me.
- Stop discussing something you don't like.

Start there, might help you out a bit. Otherwise not much to say since you don't actually discuss anything.

FYI; i don't keep using the "prove it doesn't exist" argument. Only one thing comes even close, and that was to ask evidence of the human construct. That wasn't saying "prove it or it's the other way!".

Otherwise, IF you can find an example of me using "prove it doesn't exist", i'm all ears.

HEll, any of your claims would be fun to see.

But since even answerign questions is now wrong(when you earlier asked for it), it's very clear that you just can't be, in any way, happy with any answer/reply given.

 

[Calaen]

But since it's so circular now(evidently ), here's another sort of related question;

Do people actually think they can convert an atheist/agnostic/religious person in these kind of conversations?

It's not like Krazeh over there will suddenly go "Oh yes, now i see, vikigns, i'm in!", or that i'll go "Hmm, yeap, think i'm an atheist now."

And even if that would happen, what would the reaction be?

If i said that i'm now an atheist, you lot are right and i was wrong, do you think it would be candies and flowers, or do you think that it would result in some more mudslinging and banality?

I'm sure Scouse already covered this, when he mentioned that the people who have a loss of faith suddenly feel as if their whole lives have been some sort of lie, I suspect it's similar but in the other direction people finding it suddenly feeling that they have had their eyes open to a whole new world or something.

I've watched my wife's brother (brought up in a catholic environment) yet not believe in any of it at all, become a born again christian. I've watched the guy change, not much but enough and it's all a tad weird. How he and the people he is now surrounding himself are making their day to day decisions... erm how can I put it... It's bat shit crazy