Re: God Thread, Pt. III

by zizzle Fri 30 Nov 2012, 09:39

VivaStPauli wrote:Just a small point, that really doesn't change anything about what you just said: Darwin wasn't an atheist, ironically he was a Christian.

by Cruijf Sun 02 Dec 2012, 22:26

Atheists:

If there is no God, then why are there certain signs repeated over and over again in creation? eg: Spirals

Non Muslims in general:

If Muhammad (Peace be upon him) only wanted power and leadership, than why didn't he just use his (according to you guys) skills in deception, out of this world literature, and military genius to just say he was a prophet from the idols the Arabs worshipped?

Everyone who followed him when he said he was from God would still do it, but everyone who opposed him because he was going against their religion would too.

by rwo power Mon 03 Dec 2012, 07:33

ACMRox wrote:Atheists:

If there is no God, then why are there certain signs repeated over and over again in creation? eg: Spirals

Because in a universe where human life can exist, a certain set of natural laws was necessary, and some forms simply are advantaged due to them (as they only use a minimum of energy etc. In zero gravity, masses of certain size and adequate physical condition strive to take up spherical forms for example).

And if you ask "then where came those laws from" - well, otherwise there would have been no human life than can observe them. There is no reason why there shouldn't be infinite other universes with other sets of laws, but these are simply not ours and thus not directly observable by us. There could be other intelligent life-forms that similarly wonder about their universes, of course and there could be universes that don't support life at all. You might want to look up "anthropic principle" and "multiversum theory".

And if you then say "but that is simple speculation" - well, it is an alternative world view that simply doesn't need the existence of some god-like entity, and there I like Occam's razor - if some god is not necessary, one can nicely leave "him" out of the equation.

ACMRox wrote:Non Muslims in general:

If Muhammad (Peace be upon him) only wanted power and leadership, than why didn't he just use his (according to you guys) skills in deception, out of this world literature, and military genius to just say he was a prophet from the idols the Arabs worshipped?

Everyone who followed him when he said he was from God would still do it, but everyone who opposed him because he was going against their religion would too.

Well, my question is - why would some omnipotent and omniscient being would want followers in the first place? Isn't that a rather narcisstic stance? Moreover, humans don't exactly have anything that a god could really be interested in, other than maybe considering them as some peculiar experiment.

And if you now say "but we can't know what god thinks" - isn't that exactly what every religion does? A religion implies to know what an omniscient and omnipotent being thinks (that is, it wants to be worshiped etc.), which is rather a projection of human fantasies into some higher being. Why should some omnipotent and omniscient being even care what some limited carbon based life-forms think and do?

As for Mohammed - every charismatic leader has followers and people who'd rather follow some other charismatic leader. Why are there so many states, political parties, religions etc? Because there is never one singular idea that is cool for every single human to follow and people usually follow their own self-interest, that is leaders that offer them the best profit (if they don't set themselves up as leaders, that is).

by VivaStPauli Mon 03 Dec 2012, 11:28

Just stumbled across this, it's only 1 minute, so you might want to watch it, especially the creationists and evolution doubters here.

by stevieg8 Mon 03 Dec 2012, 15:39

ACMRox wrote:

Non Muslims in general:

If Muhammad (Peace be upon him) only wanted power and leadership, than why didn't he just use his (according to you guys) skills in deception, out of this world literature, and military genius to just say he was a prophet from the idols the Arabs worshipped?

Everyone who followed him when he said he was from God would still do it, but everyone who opposed him because he was going against their religion would too.

My biggest issue with this argument is that it can be used to prove every single religion. If I ask you the same question regarding Jesus, or even Joseph Smith, what would you say? The former lost his life due to his choice of controversial views; if he had just wanted power and respect, why didn't he stay within Judaism? Even more so for Smith, who is so far out of the pale, South Park ACTUALLY stated the religion's beliefs instead of parodying them to make a joke.

Judaism takes the argument one step further, wondering why they're the only religion that purports its prophecy came not through one person, but through an entire nation? For context, the first two of the ten commandments were supposedly announced by God's voice to the entirety of the Jewish people. With no evidence that the Torah is false - and their assertion that it is true word of God - how could it be that no one of a group which supposedly numbered around 6 million came out to contradict the claim? Was it a mass drug hallucination? Or a collective lie? Many people are of the opinion that this clearly proves the religion above others.

The issue is that if every religion is proven by this theorem, none of them are. I can't claim to know Mohamed's rationale, just as I can't claim to know where Judaism's founding myths came from, or why Jesus spoke the way he did, or what made Joseph Smith think the Hebrews crossed the Atlantic by accident. All I know is that guessing at those intentions is not enough to convince me of anything.

by The Sanchez Sun 16 Dec 2012, 01:32

Tbh, if you look upon Christianity, you first have to discover what we truly believe in and that is the resurrection of the Christ (Jesus). If christian cannot prove the resurrection then everything we hold will become useless.
The three truths are:
1.The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.

2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.

3. As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.

You may have heard that Jesus was buried in a tomb in which he was 'apparently' rose within. Now we are told that Jesus did rise from the dead and that his disciples along with 500 or so men as well.
Now, I recognize that just because the disciples think they saw Jesus doesn't automatically mean that they really did. There are three possible alternatives:
1. They were lying

2. They hallucinated

3. They really saw the risen Christ

Which of these is most likely? Were they lying? On this view, the disciples knew that Jesus had not really risen, but they made up this story about the resurrection. But then why did 10 of the disciples willingly die as martyrs for their belief in the resurrection? People will often die for a lie that they believe is the truth. But if Jesus did not rise, the disciples knew it. Thus, they wouldn't have just been dying for a lie that they mistakenly believed was true. They would have been dying for a lie that they knew was a lie. Ten people would not all give their lives for something they know to be a lie. Furthermore, after witnessing events such as Watergate, can we reasonably believe that the disciples could have covered up such a lie?

Because of the absurdity of the theory that the disciples were lying, we can see why almost all scholars today admit that, if nothing else, the disciples at least believed that Jesus appeared to them. But we know that just believing something to be true doesn't make it true. Perhaps the disciples were wrong and had been deceived by a hallucination?

The hallucination theory is untenable because it cannot explain the physical nature of the appearances. The disciples record eating and drinking with Jesus, as well as touching him. This cannot be done with hallucinations. Second, it is highly unlikely that they would all have had the same hallucination. Hallucinations are highly individual, and not group projections. Imagine if I came in here and said to you, "wasn't that a great dream I had last night?" Hallucinations, like dreams, generally don't transfer like that. Further, the hallucination theory cannot explain the conversion of Paul, three years later. Was Paul, the persecutor of Christians, so hoping to see the resurrected Jesus that his mind invented an appearance as well? And perhaps most significantly, the hallucination theory cannot even deal with the evidence for the empty tomb.

Since the disciples could not have been lying or hallucinating, we have only one possible explanation left: the disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus because they really had seen the risen Jesus. So, the resurrection appearances alone demonstrate the resurrection. Thus, if we reject the resurrection, we are left with a second inexplicable mystery--first the empty tomb and now the appearances.

I get some more later...

by El Gunner Sun 16 Dec 2012, 02:22

Well it's obvious, they lied...

by The Sanchez Sun 16 Dec 2012, 02:25

^

Which of these is most likely? Were they lying? On this view, the disciples knew that Jesus had not really risen, but they made up this story about the resurrection. But then why did 10 of the disciples willingly die as martyrs for their belief in the resurrection? People will often die for a lie that they believe is the truth. But if Jesus did not rise, the disciples knew it. Thus, they wouldn't have just been dying for a lie that they mistakenly believed was true. They would have been dying for a lie that they knew was a lie. Ten people would not all give their lives for something they know to be a lie. Furthermore, after witnessing events such as Watergate, can we reasonably believe that the disciples could have covered up such a lie?

Why lie to die for somethign worthless and why the 10 of them and later on others as well.

by RealGunner Sun 16 Dec 2012, 02:31

Lol the answers you will get is that; They were definitely lying, they were on drugs, they made it up to take over the world, they were deluded, There was never a jesus in the first place etc.

by The Sanchez Sun 16 Dec 2012, 02:46

It was coming... :coffee:

by RedOranje Sun 16 Dec 2012, 02:51

Or: Jesus was a real person who DID travel as a philosopher and teacher, but he was human and did not rise from the dead. That part of the story was added later by anonymous individuals.

by El Gunner Sun 16 Dec 2012, 03:11

RealGunner wrote:Lol the answers you will get is that; They were definitely lying, they were on drugs, they made it up to take over the world, they were deluded, There was never a jesus in the first place etc.

exactly... And one of these reasons, if not all, is the truth.

by stevieg8 Tue 18 Dec 2012, 08:09

Like I said earlier, an identical question is asked in Judaism about the revelation at Mt. Sinai, during which the first two of the ten commandments were spoken "in God's voice" to the entire Jewish population.

So, why is this argument convincing for one religion, and not the others? We've now heard similar arguments from each of the three Abrahamic religions. It could be all three groups received mass revelations, or that one did and the others are lying, or that it's more like RedO's explanation and these stories evolved over time, the same way accepted myths did. Pick whichever you like, but I don't think Occam's Razor would tell me to go for mass revelation.

by free_cat Wed 19 Dec 2012, 00:30

stevieg8 wrote:
ACMRox wrote:

Non Muslims in general:

If Muhammad (Peace be upon him) only wanted power and leadership, than why didn't he just use his (according to you guys) skills in deception, out of this world literature, and military genius to just say he was a prophet from the idols the Arabs worshipped?

Everyone who followed him when he said he was from God would still do it, but everyone who opposed him because he was going against their religion would too.

My biggest issue with this argument is that it can be used to prove every single religion. If I ask you the same question regarding Jesus, or even Joseph Smith, what would you say? The former lost his life due to his choice of controversial views; if he had just wanted power and respect, why didn't he stay within Judaism? Even more so for Smith, who is so far out of the pale, South Park ACTUALLY stated the religion's beliefs instead of parodying them to make a joke.

Judaism takes the argument one step further, wondering why they're the only religion that purports its prophecy came not through one person, but through an entire nation? For context, the first two of the ten commandments were supposedly announced by God's voice to the entirety of the Jewish people. With no evidence that the Torah is false - and their assertion that it is true word of God - how could it be that no one of a group which supposedly numbered around 6 million came out to contradict the claim? Was it a mass drug hallucination? Or a collective lie? Many people are of the opinion that this clearly proves the religion above others.

The issue is that if every religion is proven by this theorem, none of them are. I can't claim to know Mohamed's rationale, just as I can't claim to know where Judaism's founding myths came from, or why Jesus spoke the way he did, or what made Joseph Smith think the Hebrews crossed the Atlantic by accident. All I know is that guessing at those intentions is not enough to convince me of anything.

You sir can think and reason.

When you start comparing different religions and think why one must be true and the others not, it's easy to see that all religions are fake.
It's a pitty that believers don't do this exercise, or if they do it is with faith over reason just to reinforce their believes.

Religions are all fake guys. 99,99999999% all of you are believing in fake religions, fake gods, fake dogmas.

by VivaStPauli Wed 19 Dec 2012, 01:50

RedOranje wrote:Or: Jesus was a real person who DID travel as a philosopher and teacher, but he was human and did not rise from the dead. That part of the story was added later by anonymous individuals.

In which case he had to have been utterly insane, and/or morally incredibly corrupt, since he was preaching the impending end of the world, repeatedly urged people to not mind the woes of tomorrow, to cast off anything material and follow him to basically nowhere.

by RealGunner Wed 19 Dec 2012, 02:17

preaching the impending end of the world

where did he say that ?

by VivaStPauli Wed 19 Dec 2012, 02:32

Well, maybe I'm reading too much into it, but isn't he quoted in the gospel of Matthew (6, something, 30ish I think) to have said that you shouldn't "mind the morrow", well basically he's saying that all will be provided in the kingdom of Heaven, which is why you shouldn't care too much about the here and now.

That's a morally bankrupt statement unless it comes from the son of god. So either you need to die to get anything, or Armageddon has to come, to bring the kingdom of Heaven to you, no?

But yeah, I probably took it too far there, he might have just meant the individual deaths of his followers. Which doesn't hurt my point concerning morality, though.

by stevieg8 Wed 19 Dec 2012, 19:35

VivaStPauli wrote:Well, maybe I'm reading too much into it, but isn't he quoted in the gospel of Matthew (6, something, 30ish I think) to have said that you shouldn't "mind the morrow", well basically he's saying that all will be provided in the kingdom of Heaven, which is why you shouldn't care too much about the here and now.

That's a morally bankrupt statement unless it comes from the son of god. So either you need to die to get anything, or Armageddon has to come, to bring the kingdom of Heaven to you, no?

But yeah, I probably took it too far there, he might have just meant the individual deaths of his followers. Which doesn't hurt my point concerning morality, though.

Or, unless it has basis in the "word of God" they had access to at the time and was used as the basis for religious thought within that community. Although Jesus was breaking with centuries of the oral law within Judaism, and was rejected by the Rabbis for that, he had his sources within the written law (the Torah, Prophets and Writings abbreviated as the Tanach).

Regardless, though, Jesus was at least CLAIMING to be the Messiah. That alone provides the moral basis you're requesting. Whether or not he was right is a different conversation altogether. It's very possible he thought he was the Messiah, but when he died, he stayed dead. It just means he was wrong.

by free_cat Wed 19 Dec 2012, 23:34

There isn't even solid evidence that Jesus existed. He might as well be an invention of Saint Paull. Bible aside, there is nothing that proves jesus existence.

by stevieg8 Thu 20 Dec 2012, 16:52

free_cat wrote:There isn't even solid evidence that Jesus started. He might as well be an invention of Saint Paull. Bible aside, there is nothing that proves jesus existence.

Actually, several Jewish texts from the time, as well as multiple roman historians reference Jesus and his rise in fame/followers.

by VivaStPauli Thu 20 Dec 2012, 17:54

There are some Roman texts even from pre-Constantinian eras that mention him as well; there are some problems though:
There was no census that would've called for his parents to go from Nazareth to Jerusalem, and while his crucifiction is commonly accepted even among Jews and Romans, the accounts of his alleged resurrection are all from Christian scripture, and his "eye-witnesses" are a bunch of hysterical women.

by RealGunner Thu 20 Dec 2012, 22:12

He was never resurrected imo. That part doesn't make sense

by VivaStPauli Thu 20 Dec 2012, 23:14

It's one of the basic tenets of Christianity though. So you think more than a billion Christians are mistaken?

by RealGunner Thu 20 Dec 2012, 23:27

Since i don't really agree on the legitimacy of the New testament, i don't think the Christians are mistaken but, falsely led..

but then i don't like to talk about other religions in a bad way so we will let it go Very Happy

by VivaStPauli Thu 20 Dec 2012, 23:29

No. No. Feel free, I don't believe in miracles either, I also don't believe that the Jews were ever in Egyptian captivity, and I don't think that the Quran was revealed by Allah to Mohammed, in fact I think over a billion Christians, a billion Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists can all be wrong at the same time Very Happy

by free_cat Fri 21 Dec 2012, 08:31

by Sponsored content