God

[TRVMP]

If there is a God the one thing that strikes me is the unfairness of it all.

 

Look at the number of religions there are in the world - and even branches and sects within religions - and the obvious point to make is that they can't all be right. Yet within each of these religions and sects you'll find those who are, or at least claim to be, 100% unwavering in their conviction that they're right. I think they call it 'faith'.

 

Now, the 'faith' that someone follows is governed overwhelmingly by geography. So if we assume that there is only one God then it's going to be down to pot luck whether or not you're worshiping the right one. In other words, eternal salvation or damnation is down to accident of birth.

 

That's a pish state of affairs if you ask me.

 

A few religions are aware of this, and now that forced Christianisation (for example) is frowned upon and missionary work isn't quite as attractive as it used to be, you can be saved if you're a heathen but live a good live, and the Jews of course believe that the "righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come" or words to that effect.

 

In other words I can eat all the shellfish I want and walk around with an uncircumcised dick - I'm going to heaven anyway

[Cet Homme Charmant]

I have seen sufficient evidence of the electron in action - e.g. via the cathode ray tube - to surmise that what we understand as an electron - a negatively charged sub-atomic particle - exists. I'm actually using a cathode ray tube television right now, and as I understand how it works I am confident enough to make the positive statement: electrons exist.

 

I hardly think that is an act of "faith." Do you believe in the wind when a weather vane blows or do you ask if you can see it?

If I had to guess I'd say it's because you were indoctrinated into it as a child, but there are always exceptions.

 

I'll hold onto that assumption for now. Doubtless you'll correct me

An otherwise excellent post with valid points let down by one thing.

 

Weather vanes don't blow, they point.

[Tom_McB]

But the question of how is not meaningless.

 

Do you need me to ask it for a third time?

How do you get that time was created when god created the heavens and the earth?

I'll state my answer again

How do you get that time was created when god created the heavens and the earth?

The General Theory of Relativity, as revealed to me by...... my Nat Phil lectures at University. Space and time are inextricably bound together. Time began with the big bang when space and matter were created.

Which feeds back into the question of the creation of God. A being that exists outside of space time is so outwith the scope of our understanding that our conception of existing/not existing a a point in time cannot be applied.

 

Even allowing for this, how do we get that the earth was created at the same time as "the cosmos" when in fact it was not?

I don't think it was either, the early passages of Genesis are intended for simple pastoralists, not cosmologists.

 

How do you account for all that follows in genesis that can't be so neatly tied in via the revisionism of the credulous?

 

See above.

 

 

 

 

 

[TRVMP]

 

This weathervane f***in' blows if you ask me.

[Cet Homme Charmant]

 

This weathervane f***in' blows if you ask me.

 

Damn, I thought I had you there as well. <_>

 

*walks back to the drawing board*

[Tom_McB]

I have seen sufficient evidence of the electron in action - e.g. via the cathode ray tube - to surmise that what we understand as an electron - a negatively charged sub-atomic particle - exists. I'm actually using a cathode ray tube television right now, and as I understand how it works I am confident enough to make the positive statement: electrons exist.

 

I hardly think that is an act of "faith." Do you believe in the wind when a weather vane blows or do you ask if you can see it?

If I had to guess I'd say it's because you were indoctrinated into it as a child, but there are always exceptions.

 

I'll hold onto that assumption for now. Doubtless you'll correct me

Doubtless I will not.

 

I'll leave you to the unfounded assumption.

 

[forza ton]

If there is a God the one thing that strikes me is the unfairness of it all.

 

Look at the number of religions there are in the world - and even branches and sects within religions - and the obvious point to make is that they can't all be right. Yet within each of these religions and sects you'll find those who are, or at least claim to be, 100% unwavering in their conviction that they're right. I think they call it 'faith'.

 

Now, the 'faith' that someone follows is governed overwhelmingly by geography. So if we assume that there is only one God then it's going to be down to pot luck whether or not you're worshiping the right one. In other words, eternal salvation or damnation is down to accident of birth.

 

That's a pish state of affairs if you ask me.

as long as it's the blue-eyed jebus with a long blonde middle parting you'll be awrite

[TRVMP]

I'll state my answer again

The General Theory of Relativity, as revealed to me by...... my Nat Phil lectures at University. Space and time are inextricably bound together. Time began with the big bang when space and matter were created.

 

I'm aware of the relationship between time and space, thanks. Please read the question properly this time:

 

I'm asking how on earth you picked up that this was in any way described by "created the heavens and the earth", which stipulates, amazingly, the heaven and the earth, not space and time.

 

From where do you get the idea that god created space AND time from the fragment that you supplied?

 

Which feeds back into the question of the creation of God. A being that exists outside of space time is so outwith the scope of our understanding that our conception of existing/not existing a a point in time cannot be applied.

But the idea of its existing at all, or its being created or uncreated, can be applied.

 

I don't think it was either, the early passages of Genesis are intended for simple pastoralists, not cosmologists.

 

Right, so you can take that fragment of genesis to be a precursor of the theory of general relativity, and the pastoralists can presumably just shrug their shoulders at that, but the idea that the earth might not have suddenly appeared in the sky upon the coming into existence of the cosmos is too much for them?

 

Do you honestly believe this pish?

 

See above.

 

Which of the above two incorrect answers am I supposed to be looking at?

[TRVMP]

Doubtless I will not.

 

I'll leave you to the unfounded assumption.

 

I wonder why that could be

 

p.s. any response regarding the wind question?

[chris_mceleny]

The catholic god, the ''proddy'' god, the jewish god and the muslim god is all the same actually. Also you never here someone who believes in god ridiculing the likes of an athiest so why do these people feel the need to ridicule those who believe in the almighty one?

[TRVMP]

The catholic god, the ''proddy'' god, the jewish god and the muslim god is all the same actually.

 

Only in the most basic terms. For example the Godhead of many branches of Christianity - the trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost - has no analogue in Judaism. (I don't know if it does in Islam but my guess is that it doesn't.

 

Also you never here someone who believes in god ridiculing the likes of an athiest

You most assuredly do if you know where to look.

 

so why do these people feel the need to ridicule those who believe in the almighty one?

 

Religion and credulity in general are responsible for vast amounts of evil in the world - as well as certain amounts of good, of course. The idea that by virtue of something being religious it is immune to criticism is a dreadful one and one that we must counter. One would never think of stepping in to stop someone from questioning someone's, say, football team, political persuasion, mode of dress - why does religion get a free ride, especially when it is based so strongly on absurdities and superstition.

 

The ridiculing part is just because I'm quite juvenile though

[Trumpton]

Only in the most basic terms. For example the Godhead of many branches of Christianity - the trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost - has no analogue in Judaism. (I don't know if it does in Islam but my guess is that it doesn't.

 

You most assuredly do if you know where to look.

Religion and credulity in general are responsible for vast amounts of evil in the world - as well as certain amounts of good, of course. The idea that by virtue of something being religious it is immune to criticism is a dreadful one and one that we must counter. One would never think of stepping in to stop someone from questioning someone's, say, football team, political persuasion, mode of dress - why does religion get a free ride, especially when it is based so strongly on absurdities and superstition.

 

The ridiculing part is just because I'm quite juvenile though

 

Sadly, the highlighted bit is true. A vast amount of suffering has taken place because of people's ideas of how to follow their god.

 

These discussions are always fruitless - you eithe have faith, or you don't. If you don't, nothing in the way of logical argument is going to be convincing. If you do have faith, that faith is , by definition, not going to be shaken just becasue you can't PROVE you're correct.

[TRVMP]

I have no evidence for this but I think that the number of people who claim they have faith is lower than the number who actually do. I think societal pressure and habit are a better explanation for the thriving of religion. But of course I'm not the thought police so I don't particularly want to go through that on a case-by-case basis.

[Tom_McB]

I'm aware of the relationship between time and space, thanks. Please read the question properly this time:

 

I'm asking how on earth you picked up that this was in any way described by "created the heavens and the earth", which stipulates, amazingly, the heaven and the earth, not space and time.

 

From where do you get the idea that god created space AND time from the fragment that you supplied?

 

Love the capitals for AND.

 

Space cannot exist without time nor time without space.

 

Hence space AND time.

 

Here to help.

 

or have you made a very silly mistake indeed. Let's look at your post in detail.

 

created the heavens and the earth

That's Genesis, the celestial heavens as in space.

 

Then you have

amazingly, the heaven and the earth

Not the heavens, you have heaven, is that a typo or are you making the elementary mistake of confusing the cosmos with paradise?

 

I hope it's a typo.

[Tom_McB]

I have no evidence for this........

 

Oh dear Lord, it's brass eye. :lol:

 

[Cet Homme Charmant]

I have no evidence for this but I think that the number of people who claim they have faith is lower than the number who actually do. I think societal pressure and habit are a better explanation for the thriving of religion. But of course I'm not the thought police so I don't particularly want to go through that on a case-by-case basis.

You may well be right, and it goes back to those who follow the 'cover all bases' theory of belief. I suspect they think that if outwardly they show unquestioning faith that God will somehow overlook or not notice their inner doubts.

 

I think.

[Tom_McB]

Religion and credulity in general are responsible for vast amounts of evil in the world - as well as certain amounts of good, of course.

So is atheism.

 

c.f. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot. Naw haud on, they did no good, just s*** loads of harm.

 

The idea that by virtue of something being religious it is immune to criticism is a dreadful one and one that we must counter. One would never think of stepping in to stop someone from questioning someone's, say, football team, political persuasion, mode of dress - why does religion get a free ride, especially when it is based so strongly on absurdities and superstition.

Religion gets a free ride :lol:

Where pray tell?

 

The ridiculing part is just because I'm quite juvenile though

 

Ego te absolvo. Academy weans were always thus. <_>

 

[JonaTon]

in regards to there being no god. If you dont believe in god and dont live the way god wants you when you die and you are in fact correct then big deal as there's nothing after life anyway.

 

If you dont believe in god and dont live the way god wants you if you die and find out in fact he's real then pity you.

 

So why take the gamble?

 

 

I believe in god as i have the faith i'm reffering to people who dont.

 

I'm not referring to you specifically but to your question: 'why take the gamble?'

 

I tried to explain that surely there is no gamble. If you change your mind because you are worried about the consequences of God actually being real then you don't really believe in God in the first place, you are just saying you do incase he's real.

 

[Cet Homme Charmant]

I'm not referring to you specifically but to your question: 'why take the gamble?'

 

I tried to explain that surely there is no gamble. If you change your mind because you are worried about the consequences of God actually being real then you don't really believe in God in the first place, you are just saying you do incase he's real.

Indeed.

 

If there is a God I'm sure He'll differentiate between those who have genuine faith in Him and those who simply claim to have faith in Him 'just in case' He exists. Believing in Him so as not to 'gamble' on the possibility of there being eternal life or damnation is surely not true faith, as by 'gambling' you acknowledge the possibility of more than one outcome. So if you think that not believing in God is a 'gamble' then by definition you're also accepting the possibility He doesn't exist and therefore don't have true faith.

[dunning1874]

So is atheism.

 

c.f. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot. Naw haud on, they did no good, just s*** loads of harm.

 

The harm they did didn't come as a direct result of their atheism though - that was down to them being deeply evil men. In some cases, religion has been a direct cause of evil.