God? Don't be silly!

[nath]

Fair enough.

But you can accept that it is a fault too, when engaging in open discussions and , how to put it, speculations? It's easier for a theist to discuss both sides, if the theist isn't an extremist, then for an atheist to do so. When discussing issues that might need some non-proof thinking too.

I don't think it's a fault at all. I'll quite happily openly discuss any idea put forward, but I'll simply require some sort of logical evidence before I give it any credit. I think the alternative - a willingness to accept ideas without critical thinking - would be more of a fault.

 

[Furr]

You're all daft, these threads always come from two directions, those who believe and those who don't, each thinks they are right and the other is a closed minded fool who needs to be "persuaded" on-line that they are wrong. It never achieve anything but endless boring endless boring endless boring posts.

But since you're all at it

NSFW

Spoiler

posting huge nude girl pic in God thread win!
*** and is naughty naughty!***

/end thread

 

[old.Tohtori]

I don't think it's a fault at all. I'll quite happily openly discuss any idea put forward, but I'll simply require some sort of logical evidence before I give it any credit. I think the alternative - a willingness to accept ideas without critical thinking - would be more of a fault.

That's what i said, you require evidence, every time, all the time.

That is the fault.

There's no "fun" discussion, 'cause it's "illogical and pointless".

Specualting about gods, god, etc can be interesting with an open mind. It doesn't mean you have to accept things, just not be so clinical all the time.

You really have an issue in accepting any fault(we all have 'em) or accepting someone else says something correct, you know that don't you?(said as an observation, not judgement, for betterment of self)

 

[inactionman]

That's what i said, you require evidence, every time, all the time.

That is the fault.

Requiring evidence isn't a fault, it's the foundation of the atheist philosophy; the major difference between atheists and theists. Theists can accept things on faith (unless it threatens their world-view), atheists require evidence (then they will revise their world-view). And, as I've said before, the two will never meet. So it's pretty pointless to continue debating it, especially as theists always try change the goal posts.

What changed me from having faith to not was quantum theory, now there's a brain f**k!

 

[nath]

That's what i said, you require evidence, every time, all the time.

That is the fault.

There's no "fun" discussion, 'cause it's "illogical and pointless".

Specualting about gods, god, etc can be interesting with an open mind. It doesn't mean you have to accept things, just not be so clinical all the time.

That's not true at all, I can quite happily have a discussion with no requirement of evidence or anything close to that. However for me to believe something, I need evidence. I don't see why that's a fault at all - it doesn't affect my ability to have fun discussions. I remember having quite a long conversation with a uni buddy about teleportation - would you go through a teleporter to be precise. I know they don't exist, I didn't need proof that they could exist, we just discussed things given the idea that they might.

You really have an issue in accepting any fault(we all have 'em) or accepting someone else says something correct, you know that don't you?(said as an observation, not judgement, for betterment of self)

Ironic though it may be to respond like this, but that's really very much not true. I have no problem accepting fault - it just so happens in this case I don't agree that I one.

 

[old.Tohtori]

That's not true at all, I can quite happily have a discussion with no requirement of evidence or anything close to that. However for me to believe something, I need evidence. I don't see why that's a fault at all - it doesn't affect my ability to have fun discussions. I remember having quite a long conversation with a uni buddy about teleportation - would you go through a teleporter to be precise. I know they don't exist, I didn't need proof that they could exist, we just discussed things given the idea that they might.

Ironic though it may be to respond like this, but that's really very much not true. I have no problem accepting fault - it just so happens in this case I don't agree that I one.

Well now the meaning changed, jsut what inactionman said :lol:

Christ(no offense to christies or atheists) sake this is hard to discuss because every statement made is vague and/or needs definition by every person in the discussion

Ok, so you CAN have a discussion that doesn't require proof. A lot, i'd say most, atheist i've met don't. (By the way, teleportation exists )

Yes it's oironic, and maybe there's not a fault now(now that you've explained that you DO talk about things without proof), but i'd keep a check on it. You do come off as a stonewall'ish type sometimes. Especially helps if you accept some statements made, that you agree on. Makes the conversation mroe pleasent.

But enough of the "mirror holding", which again is not meant in offense.

I do have a question, possibly siding on the "believe" thing;

Earths core. Basis of gravity(i think), heart of earth. There's no hard evidence of it is there?

Requiring evidence isn't a fault, it's the foundation of the atheist philosophy; the major difference between atheists and theists.

As i said, it becomes a fault when the discussion is about something that doesn't require proof.

It becomes like talking tolkien books to someone and that someone saying "why didn't they just fly to the mountain" with a serious face.

 

[DaGaffer]

Well now the meaning changed, jsut what inactionman said :lol:

Christ(no offense to christies or atheists) sake this is hard to discuss because every statement made is vague and/or needs definition by every person in the discussion

You're being a little pedantic there. Try to think of synonyms for "belief"; there aren't many. Maybe if he used "accept as true", would that do you?

Ok, so you CAN have a discussion that doesn't require proof. A lot, i'd say most, atheist i've met don't. (By the way, teleportation exists )

Let's be specific here; an atheist will demand proof if you're talking about the existence of God. It doesn't mean an atheist can't discuss things that aren't real; fuck's sake I've got friends who are atheists who are quite happy to discuss the motivations of the Cylons like they were living next door.

Yes it's oironic, and maybe there's not a fault now(now that you've explained that you DO talk about things without proof), but i'd keep a check on it. You do come off as a stonewall'ish type sometimes. Especially helps if you accept some statements made, that you agree on. Makes the conversation mroe pleasent.

Its never ultimately going to be a "pleasant" conversation (for you) when your beliefs are being put under the microscope and found wanting. Sorry, but there it is; that's why religious types always behave like atheists are attacking them personally.

But enough of the "mirror holding", which again is not meant in offense.

I do have a question, possibly siding on the "believe" thing;

Earths core. Basis of gravity(i think), heart of earth. There's no hard evidence of it is there?

If you mean no-one's tunnelled down there and had a look; no, but that doesn't mean there's no hard evidence; there's shitloads.

As i said, it becomes a fault when the discussion is about something that doesn't require proof.

It becomes like talking tolkien books to someone and that someone saying "why didn't they just fly to the mountain" with a serious face.

Interesting analogy; would you live your life as if The Lord of The Rings was a true historical account? Of course you wouldn't; its fiction. Just like the Bible, or the Sagas. This is the point, your philosophy seems to be "allow me to believe what I want to believe", which is fine, but if it isn't true, you may as well use the Lord of The Rings, or Action Comics, to underpin your belief system, they're both just as (in)valid.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You're being a little pedantic there. Try to think of synonyms for "belief"; there aren't many. Maybe if he used "accept as true", would that do you?

Don't see how that's relevant to what i said.

Let's be specific here; an atheist will demand proof if you're talking about the existence of God. It doesn't mean an atheist can't discuss things that aren't real; fuck's sake I've got friends who are atheists who are quite happy to discuss the motivations of the Cylons like they were living next door.

Yeah, but you can't discuss god(s) without proof. That's the whole point, it's sometimes fun to speculate god(s), even if you didn't believe in it. Just like it's fun for me to discuss bible even if i don't believe every word it says.

Its never ultimately going to be a "pleasant" conversation (for you) when your beliefs are being put under the microscope and found wanting. Sorry, but there it is; that's why religious types always behave like atheists are attacking them personally.

Bolded the parts. If you're putting my beliefs under the microscope, and not just talking/speculating them, then it is an attack. Just like saying "you choose to be an atheist" is putting you under the microscope and it is an "attack".

And for your information; it IS pleasant to discuss this for me. You're assuming i'm "one of those" again.

If you mean no-one's tunnelled down there and had a look; no, but that doesn't mean there's no hard evidence; there's shitloads.

Do give "shitloads". Interest, not challenge.

Interesting analogy; would you live your life as if The Lord of The Rings was a true historical account? Of course you wouldn't; its fiction. Just like the Bible, or the Sagas. This is the point, your philosophy seems to be "allow me to believe what I want to believe", which is fine, but if it isn't true, you may as well use the Lord of The Rings, or Action Comics, to underpin your belief system, they're both just as (in)valid.

Grasping too much into an example there. the point is that it's difficult to discuss and speculate on religion/god(s) because there's the requirement of proof with an atheist, when everything doesn't need to be proven 100% of the time. Atheist can't discuss religion/god(s) like a Tolkien book, even if the dicussion was in the same manner. That is a fault.

 

[inactionman]

Do give "shitloads". Interest, not challenge.

Basically there are sensors placed around the world that detect when an earthquake is happenning (and can give a warning for aftershocks), they are also used to measure the reflections in the seismic waves that the earthquakes produce in the earth's core. This data pretty proves that it's molten, based on experiments proven on other liquids. Useful wikipedia aticle here.

Grasping too much into an example there. the point is that it's difficult to discuss and speculate on religion/god(s) because there's the requirement of proof with an atheist, when everything doesn't need to be proven 100% of the time. Atheist can't discuss religion/god(s) like a Tolkien book, even if the dicussion was in the same manner. That is a fault.

As Dagaffer says, atheists don't need any proof to discuss fiction, only reality. I can discuss relogions as a work of fiction if you wish. They tend to be badly written, lack internal consistency, I can't see much of an over-arching plot, the characters are badly written and most of the god's act like spoiled children. It's like reading JK Rowling or Dan Brown.

And yes teleportation is real, you couldn't have stars without it (quantum tunneling to overcome the Coulomb barrier), but star trek style 'beaming', not very feasible currently.

As to your beliefs Toht. You follow the Nordic pantheon, yes? Patheon based belief systems can be interesting. What's your thoughts on other religions? Do you believe in an uber-pantheon that encompasses most faiths, but follow the norse gods, or do you solely believe in the norse pantheon?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Basically there are sensors placed around the world that detect when an earthquake is happenning (and can give a warning for aftershocks), they are also used to measure the reflections in the seismic waves that the earthquakes produce in the earth's core. This data pretty proves that it's molten, based on experiments proven on other liquids. Useful wikipedia aticle here.

Thanks, gives a bit of an idea on what would be required for proof of god

Not that i'm planning on it but...hypothetically. Have to think about it. BEcause in essence, core of earth is as "touchable" as god, in a way. Don't take it too literally.

As Dagaffer says, atheists don't need any proof to discuss fiction, only reality. I can discuss relogions as a work of fiction if you wish. They tend to be badly written, lack internal consistency, I can't see much of an over-arching plot, the characters are badly written and most of the god's act like spoiled children. It's like reading JK Rowling or Dan Brown.

And yes teleportation is real, you couldn't have stars without it (quantum tunneling to overcome the Coulomb barrier), but star trek style 'beaming', not very feasible currently.

As to your beliefs Toht. You follow the Nordic pantheon, yes? Patheon based belief systems can be interesting. What's your thoughts on other religions? Do you believe in an uber-pantheon that encompasses most faiths, but follow the norse gods, or do you solely believe in the norse pantheon?

Aye, they don't, but they often do discuss it like it's not fiction. You know? Take it too seriously due to it being a religious discussion.

Though i blame that on rotten apples on both camps giving prejudice thoughts on each persons head.

Aye, that's fair enough, if nath meant teleportation in a star trek beamy way.

Thanks for asking(somenoe actutally asked );

My beliefs are of the pantheon(lack of better word) being a thing of past and Odin, the ruler of rulers, being the one mentioned in the bible.

Getting ahead of myself.

I believe in the whol valhalla thing, honorable death = entrance to the halls of the dead etc, feast with odin, fun times.

While the old gods may have existed back then, when humanity was more in a turmoil, i believe that at the time of christianity rising, most of the old gods got either A: defeated B: left this place C: went to sleep and wait for humans to piss off so they can start over.

Odin, as the grand ruler stayed behind and this would explain the "old testament god" being a grumpy, vengeful etc. But, as all gods, he gets bored and kind of lets humans do what they do, and adapts a new "one god" thing.

I believe that all faiths and religions on earth stem from one "real" thing, but all of the religions have adapted a bit of this, bit of that.

It's even mentioned, as an example, that "god went down south and the demi-gods covered in fear"(metaphrasing). This would point towards demi-gods ruling in egypt, while Odin was hanging about in northern parts.

I could talk about this all day, but i think you get the general idea.

 

[inactionman]

It's a bit different proving the existence of a god, as with 'unobtanium' shell or sufficiently powerful star trek style shields, you could go all the way to the earth's core and conclusively prove it's molten. I'm not sure there's any evidence that could prove the existense of a supernatural god, as you eventually run into the fact that any sufficiently advanced technology can look like magic (to paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke).

Interesting. I thought it only polite to ask about yours as we discussed atheist philosophy a lot. Of course it gets complicated doing this with too many people as faith is very personal, and can be completely different from one person to the other, whereas atheism is pretty much the same.

How do you reconcile the concurrency of the Norse pantheon and the Old/New testament? I understand that scandinavia (and other places in northern europe) continued to follow the norse gods until the middle ages.

How are you planning on getting into valhalla when, as I understand it, you need to die in honourable battle (sword in hand, etc.) to get there? Are you currently in the military or something, or has it changed?

 

[old.Tohtori]

It's a bit different proving the existence of a god, as with 'unobtanium' shell or sufficiently powerful star trek style shields, you could go all the way to the earth's core and conclusively prove it's molten. I'm not sure there's any evidence that could prove the existense of a supernatural god, as you eventually run into the fact that any sufficiently advanced technology can look like magic (to paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke).

Interesting. I thought it only polite to ask about yours as we discussed atheist philosophy a lot. Of course it gets complicated doing this with too many people as faith is very personal, and can be completely different from one person to the other, whereas atheism is pretty much the same.

How do you reconcile the concurrency of the Norse pantheon and the Old/New testament? I understand that scandinavia (and other places in northern europe) continued to follow the norse gods until the middle ages.

How are you planning on getting into valhalla when, as I understand it, you need to die in honourable battle (sword in hand, etc.) to get there? Are you currently in the military or something, or has it changed?

True, in most cases a god would most likely be called a "magical being" at best, which i find rather silly since we have a definition of a "god". But, that's kinda besides the point i guess.

About the old/new testament, yes, christians killed off the viking ways and then forced the religion here. But i think that humans are pawns(as such) in a godly play. So, if odin(or some other, loki would fit nicely) got bored of the old ways and wanted to get rid of the other gods, he would do it via removing the masses who believe in the other gods. This would effectively remove the other gods from power, concerning this world. Or most likely, make other gods bored of a world where they aren't believed in.

Old testament is more of a "power trip" of a new god, while the new testament is a "it's up to you humans now, i'm bored".

The thing is that it's not the old "sword in hand", it's an honorable death. Those days, honorable death meant battle as battle was the way of life. These days, it's honorable death as in, well...not die in tubes in some institution or some such.

 

[inactionman]

About the old/new testament, yes, christians killed off the viking ways and then forced the religion here. But i think that humans are pawns(as such) in a godly play. So, if odin(or some other, loki would fit nicely) got bored of the old ways and wanted to get rid of the other gods, he would do it via removing the masses who believe in the other gods. This would effectively remove the other gods from power, concerning this world. Or most likely, make other gods bored of a world where they aren't believed in.

That's one of the reasons I became an atheist, I don't like the idea that any entity is controlling my life (I have enough trouble with politicians and other idiots). Particularly ones as capricious and vengeful as the gods of most established religions.

So do you think that gods get their power from their worshippers? Or that they are like children with limited attention spans?

If the former, they aren't doing too good a job, as the numbers of worshippers in most religions (barring Islam and the fundies) is dropping off sharply, or moving towards a more fuzzy 'belief'. If the later, are they really worthy of worship?

 

[Scouse]

That's what i said, you require evidence, every time, all the time.

That is the fault.

There's no "fun" discussion, 'cause it's "illogical and pointless".

Yep, it is illogical and pointless to make stuff up based on nothing. Kids do that sort of shit and, don't know about you, but it got old really quickly for me.

It doesn't mean there's no "fun" discussions though. Even pure comedy ones. The best comedy is based on truth and observation.

However, what we find "fun" is bound to be different: Eg. Talk about ghosts. Bores the living shit out of me, as do all those fucking shitty ghost programs. My ex loved 'em. "Just a bit of fun". How can it be fun when it's so obviously shit?

 

[old.Tohtori]

That's one of the reasons I became an atheist, I don't like the idea that any entity is controlling my life (I have enough trouble with politicians and other idiots). Particularly ones as capricious and vengeful as the gods of most established religions.

So do you think that gods get their power from their worshippers? Or that they are like children with limited attention spans?

If the former, they aren't doing too good a job, as the numbers of worshippers in most religions (barring Islam and the fundies) is dropping off sharply, or moving towards a more fuzzy 'belief'. If the later, are they really worthy of worship?

Worthy? Well, pantheon was funny in a sense that worship wasn't required as such. Offerings were done to "calm down" the gods. They ain't worthy of worship, but belief is kind of a "how it is" for me. It's not a belief so that i get to afterlife, it's thee belief OF an afterlife.

Also, the "pawns" thing might have been a bad analogy, more like the gods push us in some direction. Easily done with masses as one can see.

I'm thinking they ain't doing their job at all at the moment, as said, it's up to us humans now. doesn't require me to drop my belief though, as it's not worship.

Even contemplated(not saying it is) on humans who die, go to valhalla, picking up power. That brings a whole new can of worms, imagine hitler being in charge of godly nudging powers.

That i linked to "how much you effected the world while living", so mass murderers would be at the top of the list.

Yep, it is illogical and pointless to make stuff up based on nothing. Kids do that sort of shit and, don't know about you, but it got old really quickly for me.

It doesn't mean there's no "fun" discussions though. Even pure comedy ones. The best comedy is based on truth and observation.

However, what we find "fun" is bound to be different: Eg. Talk about ghosts. Bores the living shit out of me, as do all those fucking shitty ghost programs. My ex loved 'em. "Just a bit of fun". How can it be fun when it's so obviously shit?

Now that i can "agree" with. If you find religion and god(s) boring, then by all means, do so. Personal taste is ofcourse an issue that can't be an issue

 

[Calaen]

You are all wasting your time!!!!!

Everyone of Toh's posts changes depending on who he responds too!!!

I don't believe in god but I can speculate what it would be like if he did exist.

Someone that believes in god cannot prove to me he exists, so they take it personally when I say I don't believe in their belief.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You are all wasting your time!!!!!

Everyone of Toh's posts changes depending on who he responds too!!!

Oh gee, that's quite problematic. It's not like people are saying different things...no wait

 

[Calaen]

Yet you are still replying with massive posts and quotes trying to confuse people into thinking you are right and get some closure for yourself.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yet you are still replying with massive posts and quotes trying to confuse people into thinking you are right and get some closure for yourself.

Not getting into this.

 

[Calaen]

Oh really I see over 30 pages of you diving right in there.

 

[TdC]

stop messing about

 

[old.Tohtori]

Inactionman, i thought about it a bit more at wokr and on the way home and there is a logical advancement even in the norse way, that would explain atheism as a next step in the evolution of "gods and man"(not real evolution, reserve the right to explain wrong terminology )

First there were gods.
Then there was god.
Then god left us the globe.
Then...future.
Then, we become gods.

While that doesn't destroy the valhalla afterlife situation, it would explain why the belief in god(s) is dropping as it would be the next step.

Not saying it is, but saying that it might be one way to look at it.

Afterall the honorable death is something that is ages old and has stuck in the human ways for a long time.

 

[Panda On Smack]

Oh really I see over 30 pages of you diving right in there.

But we're only on page 24?

 

[Calaen]

The other thread that this one was started because of.

Anyway I have been told off, I guess pointing out Toh is a prick in instances like this I wrong

So back on Topic religion is all bollocks!

 

[inactionman]

I've seen fair bit of fiction like this (particularly Ben Bova, the Orion books) where we evolve into god-like beings of immense power because of technology; however we wouldn't be gods because of the lack of supernatural power. This is why I previously stated you can't scientifically prove a god, as sufficently advanced technology would be able to look like the supernatural to those that are, relatively, less advanced.

I prefer the following view of intellectual maturity of mankind:

Mankind become self-aware and intelligent.
Mankind does not have the mental tools to understand the natural world so invents tribal gods to explain it.
Mankind codifies these beliefs into structured religions to help promote civilisation (lacking the maturity and ability to 'control' ourselves we require an omniscient, omnipotent authority figure, god/gods, to do so).
Mankind develops the mental tools to being to analyse and understand the natural world (rational analysis, i.e. science/philosophy).
Mankind uses these tools to understand the natural world (age of enlightenment).
Mankind begins to realises it does not need to believe in gods anymore (atheism).
Mankind matures into a rational mature race (with the ability to understand ourselves, ensure we are in control and that we, mainly, work to our long term best interests).

But all of this reflects my humanist leanings.

 

[Panda On Smack]

I'm just going to wait for God to sort this out and explain everything all in good time.

Remember this thread when he does

 

[Turamber]

How do you reconcile the concurrency of the Norse pantheon and the Old/New testament?

Just jumping in here 'cos I've just got home from work and this looked an interesting tidbit. Many of the Christian faiths have taken elements of pagan mythology and worship into their religion, they feel that doing so makes it okay.

The Christmas celebration is a perfect example.

However the accuracy, or the form of worship of a deity, and even the way people who claim to believe in a God behave has absolutely no bearing on whether God exists or not.

 

[nath]

As i said, it becomes a fault when the discussion is about something that doesn't require proof.

It becomes like talking tolkien books to someone and that someone saying "why didn't they just fly to the mountain" with a serious face.

I think, as has been said, the problem is discussing ideas with someone who thinks they are facts. Plus there's elements of Scouse's point regarding ghosts. My attitude is "meh, it's silly". Though something that hasn't been proved - the idea that low frequency sounds are responsible for so called ghost sightings is interesting to me. Something I'd happily discuss without proof - it's when one party thinks it's fact and the other thinks it's both fiction and dull that there's a problem.

Aye, that's fair enough, if nath meant teleportation in a star trek beamy way.

Aye, it was a discussion of conciousness really - the idea being that your molecular structure is broken down and transmitted to another place, then recreated. I always figured that no one would no the difference, but your consciousness would have been destroyed and a new one would be standing there afterwards. A chat for another time though.

Mankind does not have the mental tools to understand the natural world so invents tribal gods to explain it.

I think it also relates to our upbringing. God is an extension of our father figure in our mind. When young, our parents are our Gods - they control our existence, if we are bad, we are punished. When we reach adulthood our parents no longer hold that power over us, but we still have an internal "parent" in our mind that punishes us for doing wrong, rewards us for being good. God is society's father figure - something to remind us that there's always consequences for our actions. As we become more aware of our environment (people/surroundings, not just nature) and the impact we have on it, we are able to punish/reward ourselves for our actions. The need for an external father figure bearing down upon is is reduced.

However the accuracy, or the form of worship of a deity, and even the way people who claim to believe in a God behave has absolutely no bearing on whether God exists or not.

Couldn't agree more - actions of individuals do not affect this discussion at all. That's why I didn't want to discuss religion per se - that is about people, the idea of a supernatural being is a separate thing entirely.

 

[rynnor]

God is dead - surely everyone knows he comitted suicide during the first world war when he truly realised the implications of giving humanity freewill!

If a God had existed and was truly aware of everything that was going on in the world the sheer horror of mankinds evil would surely send it over the edge.

Humans are lucky in that they have a very limited vision and they have mental processes that slowly bury bad memories - something a God would lack.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

I wondered why the rest of general was dead, now I know why. This bloody thing is open again.