Religion In A Nutshell

by Lurker Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:31 pm

First topic message reminder :

Religion In A Nutshell - Page 3 Religi10

by nicko Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:33 pm

If he's tit is that low down, he needs a new Bra

by Lurker Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:55 pm

I think you have a hole in your glove.

by Lurker Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:30 pm

Bummer!

Religion In A Nutshell - Page 3 Church10

by veya_victaous Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:42 am

by eddie Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:41 am

Still as funny as fuck

by Lurker Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:52 pm

by veya_victaous Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:39 am

by veya_victaous Wed Aug 29, 2018 4:24 am

by veya_victaous Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:54 am

by Lurker Sat Sep 01, 2018 1:23 pm

by Lurker Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:25 pm

by Original Quill Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:46 pm

Lurker wrote:

Paul already abandoned Christ...and he never even met him!

by heavenlyfather Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:35 pm

Men can write what ever they think about God, Jesus, Salvation but the bible is the final word..

by Lurker Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:42 pm

heavenlyfather wrote:Men can write what ever they think about God, Jesus, Salvation but the bible is the final word..

You haven't learned a damn thing from that Bible of yours if you like Donald Trump.

by heavenlyfather Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:44 pm

Lurker wrote:
heavenlyfather wrote:Men can write what ever they think about God, Jesus, Salvation but the bible is the final word..

You haven't learned a damn thing from that Bible of yours if you like Donald Trump.

oddly enough it doesn't mention Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon in the bible...

by Guest Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:52 pm

eddie just so you know lurker has already started playing stupid games by changing HF's answers .
What chance is there or serious debate when this is happening ?

by heavenlyfather Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:54 pm

heavenlyfather wrote:
Lurker wrote:

You haven't learned a damn thing from that Bible of yours if you like Donald Trump.

oddly enough it doesn't mention Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon in the bible...

oh dear, are we stooping to changing posts... Smile

by veya_victaous Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:41 am

Lurker can't change posts

Ben set up that 'censorship' replacement Wink

by Guest Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:01 am

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote: eddie just so you know lurker has already started playing stupid games by changing HF's answers .
What chance is there or serious debate when this is happening ?

Actually Ben has made made this permenant change to the Name Trump, when you add President in front of his name.

Laters everyone

by Eilzel Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:04 am

Didge wrote:
Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote: eddie just so you know lurker has already started playing stupid games by changing HF's answers .
What chance is there or serious debate when this is happening ?

Actually Ben has made made this permenant change to the Name Trump, when you add President in front of his name.

Laters everyone

This is news to me:

Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon

EDIT: This is amazing Laughing

by Guest Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:16 am

heavenlyfather wrote:Men can write what ever they think about God, Jesus, Salvation but the bible is the final word..

but the bible was written by men who can write whatever they think about God, Jesus and salvation

by veya_victaous Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:23 am

gelico wrote:
heavenlyfather wrote:Men can write what ever they think about God, Jesus, Salvation but the bible is the final word..

but the bible was written by men who can write whatever they think about God, Jesus and salvation

Or more interesting gods and 'ideas'
And women should wrote some stuff too
bounce

by HoratioTarr Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:45 am

heavenlyfather wrote:Men can write what ever they think about God, Jesus, Salvation but the bible is the final word..

Final word in what context?

by Lurker Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:31 pm

"lurker has already started playing stupid games by changing HF's answers ."

How am I supposed to be doing that? I'm not an admin. I can't change anybody's answers. LOL

by Lurker Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:37 pm

heavenlyfather wrote:
Lurker wrote:

You haven't learned a damn thing from that Bible of yours if you like Donald Trump.

oddly enough it doesn't mention Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon in the bible...

You have a hole in your glove. You can't catch or understand anything other than your narrow-minded interpretation of a book that has been translated many times and edited many times to suit what ever religion is popular at the time. It is so ambiguous you can make it say whatever you twist it to say.

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:48 pm

Lurker wrote:
heavenlyfather wrote:

oddly enough it doesn't mention Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon in the bible...

You have a hole in your glove. You can't catch or understand anything other than your narrow-minded interpretation of a book that has been translated many times and edited many times to suit what ever religion is popular at the time. It is so ambiguous you can make it say whatever you twist it to say.

Lurker, you neither believe in God not accept religion. I accept that, and I respect your views. Honestly.

I am a believer; a Baptised and Confirmed Anglican but now a follower of Methodism because I do not like the hierarchical robes and ritual of the Anglican liturgy and Communion.

You may say to me: "There is no God. If there is, prove it."

And I would reply: "I cannot prove to you that there is a God. Can you prove to me that there isn't?

by Victorismyhero Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:15 pm

ah moley

I would be inclind to accept the idea of a "creator", even if not of the 6days and a rest variety...BUT

the particular abrahamic one ...thats altogether a problem for me

perhaps YOU would be able to answer me one small but rather important and vexing question

this God of yours

is omnipotent...yes?
omniscient....yes?

then IF he IS omniscient, then he knows all of what was, is AND YET WILL BE down to the smallest detail...yes?

OK....

so WHY does he allow a soul to be, that he KNOWS will do evil, and THEN punishes that soul for eternity....

thats kinda sadistic innit???

everyone else I have asked this question runs away muttering some nonsense about "a test" but being omniscient surely he already KNOWS the result...so why do it.....surely as a supposedly "loving god" he must have some morals....and if he hasnt i.e he is amoral then he cannot be loving.....

by eddie Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:58 pm

Hey this is a great song!

by veya_victaous Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:52 am

Lord Foul wrote:ah moley

I would be inclind to accept the idea of a "creator", even if not of the 6days and a rest variety...BUT

the particular abrahamic one ...thats altogether a problem for me

perhaps YOU would be able to answer me one small but rather important and vexing question

this God of yours

is omnipotent...yes?
omniscient....yes?

then IF he IS omniscient, then he knows all of what was, is AND YET WILL BE down to the smallest detail...yes?

OK....

so WHY does he allow a soul to be, that he KNOWS will do evil, and THEN punishes that soul for eternity....

thats kinda sadistic innit???

everyone else I have asked this question runs away muttering some nonsense about "a test" but being omniscient surely he already KNOWS the result...so why do it.....surely as a supposedly "loving god" he must have some morals....and if he hasnt i.e he is amoral then he cannot be loving.....

exactly
Sorry Fred, but it is really easy to PROVE the God of the bible does not exist and the Bible is false

Simple as getting out a telescope
the Sun Does NOT revolve around the Earth
Despite the supposed 'omniscient perfection' and 100% truth the Bible stating it does, that is Factually Incorrect on at least 2 accounts since it is no longer omniscient if I cant even get the fundamental movement of our solar system correct

It's almost Like it was written by some uneducated peons in a desert, which had never traveled more than 50 km away from their village Wink

by Eilzel Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:32 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Lurker wrote:
heavenlyfather wrote:

oddly enough it doesn't mention Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon in the bible...

You have a hole in your glove. You can't catch or understand anything other than your narrow-minded interpretation of a book that has been translated many times and edited many times to suit what ever religion is popular at the time. It is so ambiguous you can make it say whatever you twist it to say.

Lurker, you neither believe in God not accept religion. I accept that, and I respect your views. Honestly.

I am a believer; a Baptised and Confirmed Anglican but now a follower of Methodism because I do not like the hierarchical robes and ritual of the Anglican liturgy and Communion.

You may say to me: "There is no God. If there is, prove it."

And I would reply: "I cannot prove to you that there is a God. Can you prove to me that there isn't?

A pretty frequently refuted argument, Lord Ed.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The burden of proof is not on the one refusing to accept your extraordinary claim.

If I tell you there is an invisible flying pink unicorn that follows me around every day and advises every decision I make - should you take my word for it? I can't actually show you this thing (but I know it is true, because the IVPU tells me that's what he is Wink

). Or would you require some kind of substantial 'proof' in order to think I am not simply some delusional weirdo?

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:12 pm

Lord Foul wrote:ah moley

I would be inclind to accept the idea of a "creator", even if not of the 6days and a rest variety...BUT

the particular abrahamic one ...thats altogether a problem for me

perhaps YOU would be able to answer me one small but rather important and vexing question

this God of yours

is omnipotent...yes?
omniscient....yes?

then IF he IS omniscient, then he knows all of what was, is AND YET WILL BE down to the smallest detail...yes?

OK....

so WHY does he allow a soul to be, that he KNOWS will do evil, and THEN punishes that soul for eternity....

thats kinda sadistic innit???

everyone else I have asked this question runs away muttering some nonsense about "a test" but being omniscient surely he already KNOWS the result...so why do it.....surely as a supposedly "loving god" he must have some morals....and if he hasnt i.e he is amoral then he cannot be loving.....

Hi, LF. Apologies for the delay - been offline for a couple of days as I am tied up with Royal British Legion duties at this time of the year.

The short answer to your questions: Not in my opinion.

If you mean, do I believe that there's a big old guy in a dish-dash and with a huge white beard sitting on a cloud, who is benevolent one minute and vengeful the next and who knows what 7.6 million homo sapiens are thinking, doing and plotting....most definitely not.

I certainly believe in a Creator - something must have triggered off the Big Bang, so that creator could well have been a rogue chemical reaction or the laws of physics being turned upside down.

But who - or what - created the chemicals and laws of physics in the first place?

I don't believe in seventh ribs, serpents and, indeed, much of Christian Old Testament theology because it is based almost wholly on Hebrew tribal myth and legend handed down over hundreds if not thousands of years and subject to the beliefs, prejudices and perceptions of the story-tellers and soothsayers themselves.

The New Testament is different in that it is much more modern - the blink of an eye in historical terms -and some of it at least is based on historical and written evidence. Even "miracles" like the plagues of Egypt, the burning bush and parting of the Red Sea have been the subject of some recently published and pretty impressive scientific theory.

But having said that, much of what all Christians believe in today is based on the theological history of the Roman Catholic Church, and we all know just how those beliefs were both formulated and enforced in the not too distant past in the name of then contemporary politics.

Do I believe that there was a prophet called Jesus a couple of thousand years ago - yesterday in historical terms - and that he was a very special sort of man? Yes, I do.

Do I believe that the Romans crucified Him because so far as governance and law and order were concerned, His preaching and work were held by authority to be dangerous and distinctly threatening to the establishment? Yes again.

Do I believe in the virgin birth and the Resurrection? Well, they are central to my religious education and upbringing, and although I have my doubts, they are what I want to believe.

Am I a zealot? No.

Am I an active Christian? Not really, though I certainly believe in the fellowship of Holy Communion and it is why I attend every month or so, now at a Methodist chapel rather than an Anglican church in which I was baptised and confirmed for the simple reason that Methodism is far less formal and centred on robes and ritual...and anyway, Charles Wesley did write some damn good hymns!

But...I am not a theologian, so I think if you want a more convincing argument, then perhaps Dibs and Heavenly Father are far more competent than I.

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:44 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Lurker, you neither believe in God not accept religion. I accept that, and I respect your views. Honestly.

I am a believer; a Baptised and Confirmed Anglican but now a follower of Methodism because I do not like the hierarchical robes and ritual of the Anglican liturgy and Communion.

You may say to me: "There is no God. If there is, prove it."

And I would reply: "I cannot prove to you that there is a God. Can you prove to me that there isn't?

A pretty frequently refuted argument, Lord Ed.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The burden of proof is not on the one refusing to accept your extraordinary claim.

If I tell you there is an invisible flying pink unicorn that follows me around every day and advises every decision I make - should you take my word for it? I can't actually show you this thing (but I know it is true, because the IVPU tells me that's what he is ). Or would you require some kind of substantial 'proof' in order to think I am not simply some delusional weirdo?

I am not asking anyone to accept my "extraordinary claim"; I am simply reminding Lurker and others that while he, and they, have the inalienable right not to believe, I have an equally inalienable right to do so.

Perhaps the main difference between us is that I fully and unquestioningly accept their/your right; it is not unreasonable to expect that others will accept mine, and without the ridicule and contempt that are frequently levelled.

Nor am I some Bible-bashing evangelical who posts threads threatening hell-fire and brimstone on non-believers; I made what I happen to believe was a perfectly reasonable and logical comment on an issue raised by another poster. Is that not what is supposed to happen in a discussion group?

I do not require any "substantial proof" that you are not "some delusional weirdo" just because you express a belief, albeit amusingly fictional, and I am somewhat surprised at the inference, at least, that I myself am.

But I will disregard it and think nothing more of it, and certainly no worse of you. That is called "turning the other cheek", another Christian principle, by the way.

Perhaps I am quite not so deluded after all.

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:07 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:ah moley

I would be inclind to accept the idea of a "creator", even if not of the 6days and a rest variety...BUT

the particular abrahamic one ...thats altogether a problem for me

perhaps YOU would be able to answer me one small but rather important and vexing question

this God of yours

is omnipotent...yes?
omniscient....yes?

then IF he IS omniscient, then he knows all of what was, is AND YET WILL BE down to the smallest detail...yes?

OK....

so WHY does he allow a soul to be, that he KNOWS will do evil, and THEN punishes that soul for eternity....

thats kinda sadistic innit???

everyone else I have asked this question runs away muttering some nonsense about "a test" but being omniscient surely he already KNOWS the result...so why do it.....surely as a supposedly "loving god" he must have some morals....and if he hasnt i.e he is amoral then he cannot be loving.....

exactly
Sorry Fred, but it is really easy to PROVE the God of the bible does not exist and the Bible is false

Simple as getting out a telescope
the Sun Does NOT revolve around the Earth
Despite the supposed 'omniscient perfection' and 100% truth the Bible stating it does, that is Factually Incorrect on at least 2 accounts since it is no longer omniscient if I cant even get the fundamental movement of our solar system correct

It's almost Like it was written by some uneducated peons in a desert, which had never traveled more than 50 km away from their village

Hopefully I've answered some of your points in my earlier reply, and I didn't make any of the claims that you appear to be attributing to me. I was simply discussing my personal beliefs and my inalienable right to hold them - not expressing some sort of theological expertise. I don't have any.

The paragraph I've highlighted is, of course, perfectly true...in the case of the Old Testament.

The New Testament might be a little more difficult to dismiss so peremptorily. Some of the writings are still in existence...ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? And those old disciples certainly traveled a bit further than the next village and were pretty adept and prolific at writing letters, epistles and gospels, were't they?

By the way, I do happen to have heard of Galileo...and I even think the Papal inquirers who indulged in their passion for pyrotechnics on the poor buggers who told 'em that the earth actually flew round the sun and not the other way wrong were, er, somewhat misguided.

by Eilzel Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:21 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Lurker, you neither believe in God not accept religion. I accept that, and I respect your views. Honestly.

I am a believer; a Baptised and Confirmed Anglican but now a follower of Methodism because I do not like the hierarchical robes and ritual of the Anglican liturgy and Communion.

You may say to me: "There is no God. If there is, prove it."

And I would reply: "I cannot prove to you that there is a God. Can you prove to me that there isn't?

A pretty frequently refuted argument, Lord Ed.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The burden of proof is not on the one refusing to accept your extraordinary claim.

If I tell you there is an invisible flying pink unicorn that follows me around every day and advises every decision I make - should you take my word for it? I can't actually show you this thing (but I know it is true, because the IVPU tells me that's what he is ). Or would you require some kind of substantial 'proof' in order to think I am not simply some delusional weirdo?

I am not asking anyone to accept my "extraordinary claim"; I am simply reminding Lurker and others that while he, and they, have the inalienable right not to believe, I have an equally inalienable right to do so.

Perhaps the main difference between us is that I fully and unquestioningly accept their/your right; it is not unreasonable to expect that others will accept mine, and without the ridicule and contempt that are frequently levelled.

Nor am I some Bible-bashing evangelical who posts threads threatening hell-fire and brimstone on non-believers; I made what I happen to believe was a perfectly reasonable and logical comment on an issue raised by another poster. Is that not what is supposed to happen in a discussion group?

I do not require any "substantial proof" that you are not "some delusional weirdo" just because you express a belief, albeit amusingly fictional, and I am somewhat surprised at the inference, at least, that I myself am.

But I will disregard it and think nothing more of it, and certainly no worse of you. That is called "turning the other cheek", another Christian principle, by the way.

Perhaps I am quite not so deluded after all.

I meant no offense, Lord Ed. My response was only to your question: "can you prove there isn't (a god)."

I appreciate you are not among the minority of religious nuts, and I also respect your right to believe what you like.

I love debating the existence of gods though, and I apologise if my wording can be a little ridiculing or patronising where belief is concerned Wink

I come from CofE family and respect their views too, I just enjoy the anomalies of it too much. As I said, was just responding to your own question.

by Vintage Wed Oct 31, 2018 2:02 pm

I was brought up a bell, book and candles genuflecting Anglican, yet I was always taught to question my faith and respect other faiths but ask questions so I've always been interested in religions. As for the Bible I don't believe its a load of old rubbish by any means but people do look at it the wrong way. I reckon Genesis is just the story of how this planet came about told in an easily understandable way, the rest I think is a sort of self help manual re: food laws, sexual laws etc for a primitive population trying to survive and prosper, interspersed with a history of those struggles, people have of course come along and interpreted those laws and ideas for their own means, usually nefarious and even perhaps translated wrongly or added to, again for their own means.
Do I believe in an omnipotent divine being - no. As Fred said there is a lot to offer in the way of support in a religion and a great deal of good has been done in its name although there's quite a lot of bad done as well.
There was an experiment done on a cardiac ward in the US, half the patients all having a similar problem were prayed for by name at local churches, the other half were not, the patients were told generally that they would be prayed for but not exactly who, the group that were prayed for had a better recovery than those not prayed for, I don't know if this has ever been repeated of if it can really be quantified.
So it could be that certain people have tapped into or been somehow connected with a higher consciousness to learn
this stuff and pass it on however they can, or forward looking people inspired some other way, or a left overs from a previous advanced society that we've lost all memory of and of course there's the aliens helping us along theory.
I do think there is a neutral power or energy that can be tapped into by anyone and repetition of phrases helps to tune in to this as in specific prayers etc, tuning into the frequency.

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Oct 31, 2018 2:24 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I am not asking anyone to accept my "extraordinary claim"; I am simply reminding Lurker and others that while he, and they, have the inalienable right not to believe, I have an equally inalienable right to do so.

Perhaps the main difference between us is that I fully and unquestioningly accept their/your right; it is not unreasonable to expect that others will accept mine, and without the ridicule and contempt that are frequently levelled.

Nor am I some Bible-bashing evangelical who posts threads threatening hell-fire and brimstone on non-believers; I made what I happen to believe was a perfectly reasonable and logical comment on an issue raised by another poster. Is that not what is supposed to happen in a discussion group?

I do not require any "substantial proof" that you are not "some delusional weirdo" just because you express a belief, albeit amusingly fictional, and I am somewhat surprised at the inference, at least, that I myself am.

But I will disregard it and think nothing more of it, and certainly no worse of you. That is called "turning the other cheek", another Christian principle, by the way.

Perhaps I am quite not so deluded after all.

I meant no offense, Lord Ed. My response was only to your question: "can you prove there isn't (a god)."

I appreciate you are not among the minority of religious nuts, and I also respect your right to believe what you like.

I love debating the existence of gods though, and I apologise if my wording can be a little ridiculing or patronising where belief is concerned

I come from CofE family and respect their views too, I just enjoy the anomalies of it too much. As I said, was just responding to your own question.

Thanks for that, Eil, and I do of course accept fully what you say.

However, I still question why the burden of proof should be solely on my shoulders. I was simply responding to Lurker's frequent expressions of hatred of and contempt for religion, its institutions and adherents (one need go no further than his signature to see that), views which he has a perfect right to hold and to express.

However, I'm not attempting to act like a missionary or preacher in stating, honestly and openly, that while I can't prove the existence of a god, can Lurker - or anyone else - prove that there isn't one?

And nothing, absolutely nothing, that has been posted so far answers my question; in fact all I have been able to detect is a view that the answer is deemed to be so obvious that no proof is needed.

At least I honestly admit that I am unable to provide any proof of what I believe.

by Original Quill Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:52 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

I meant no offense, Lord Ed. My response was only to your question: "can you prove there isn't (a god)."

I appreciate you are not among the minority of religious nuts, and I also respect your right to believe what you like.

I love debating the existence of gods though, and I apologise if my wording can be a little ridiculing or patronising where belief is concerned

I come from CofE family and respect their views too, I just enjoy the anomalies of it too much. As I said, was just responding to your own question.

Thanks for that, Eil, and I do of course accept fully what you say.

However, I still question why the burden of proof should be solely on my shoulders. I was simply responding to Lurker's frequent expressions of hatred of and contempt for religion, its institutions and adherents (one need go no further than his signature to see that), views which he has a perfect right to hold and to express.

However, I'm not attempting to act like a missionary or preacher in stating, honestly and openly, that while I can't prove the existence of a god, can Lurker - or anyone else - prove that there isn't one?

And nothing, absolutely nothing, that has been posted so far answers my question; in fact all I have been able to detect is a view that the answer is deemed to be so obvious that no proof is needed.

At least I honestly admit that I am unable to provide any proof of what I believe.

It's not a matter or rights or religion, Fred. It's just that you committed the fallacy of Ignoring Sagan's Maxim: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The Null hypothesis requires no evidence.

You said: "And I would reply: 'I cannot prove to you that there is a God. Can you prove to me that there isn't?'" In trying to defend an extraordinary claim, you thought you were reversing the logic and going to the contrary claim. In fact, you went to the null hypothesis, which is not an extraordinary claim and needs no proof. Another word for it is positive claim (for logical positivists). To posit is to make an extraordinary (positive) claim; the null hypothesis is not a positive claim.

A handy reference for logical fallicies: https://quizlet.com/243933020/philosophy-1101-critical-thinking-flash-cards/

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thanks for that, Eil, and I do of course accept fully what you say.

However, I still question why the burden of proof should be solely on my shoulders. I was simply responding to Lurker's frequent expressions of hatred of and contempt for religion, its institutions and adherents (one need go no further than his signature to see that), views which he has a perfect right to hold and to express.

However, I'm not attempting to act like a missionary or preacher in stating, honestly and openly, that while I can't prove the existence of a god, can Lurker - or anyone else - prove that there isn't one?

And nothing, absolutely nothing, that has been posted so far answers my question; in fact all I have been able to detect is a view that the answer is deemed to be so obvious that no proof is needed.

At least I honestly admit that I am unable to provide any proof of what I believe.

It's not a matter or rights or religion, Fred. It's just that you committed the fallacy of Ignoring Sagan's Maxim: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The Null hypothesis requires no evidence.

You said: "And I would reply: 'I cannot prove to you that there is a God. Can you prove to me that there isn't?'" In trying to defend an extraordinary claim, you thought you were reversing the logic and going to the contrary claim. In fact, you went to the null hypothesis, which is not an extraordinary claim and needs no proof. Another word for it is positive claim (for logical positivists). To posit is to make an extraordinary (positive) claim; the null hypothesis is not a positive claim.

A handy reference for logical fallicies: https://quizlet.com/243933020/philosophy-1101-critical-thinking-flash-cards/

Saying that "there is no God" is, I can assure you, an "extraordinary claim" so far as an estimated 2.2 billion Christians (a third of the population of the earth alone), an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims and all the followers of countless other religions, together making up at least half the world's population, would tend to suggest that your "null hypothesis" may not be quite so "null" as you would like to think.

Isn't saying that believers must prove their belief while non-believers have no need to do so a tad hypocritical, indeed quite arrogant?

Anyway, the difference between myself and some other posters is that I am not saying that I am right and that they are wrong, and nor would I do so in this instance.

I'm not criticising anyone and I'm certainly not trying to convert anyone. All I am saying that I can't prove my case; can they?

by Original Quill Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:46 pm

Fred M. wrote:Saying that "there is no God" is, I can assure you, an "extraordinary claim" so far as an estimated 2.2 billion Christians (a third of the population of the earth alone), an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims and all the followers of countless other religions, together making up at least half the world's population, would tend to suggest that your "null hypothesis" may not be quite so "null" as you would like to think.

You are redefining the terms, and the logical import behind them. “Extraordianary claim” means asserting something, while “null” means a state of negation. Saying there is no god is saying, simply, there is a state of negation. You are trying to assign some import to the expression, when in fact its very meaning is vacuousness.

You are also resorting to another fallacy, the fallacy of popularity: Arguing that a claim must be true merely because a substantial number of people believe it. That many, many people believe something has nothing at all to do with veracity. Didn’t we all once believe the earth was flat? All I can say is that logic and popularity don’t mix.

Fred M. wrote:Isn't saying that believers must prove their belief while non-believers have no need to do so a tad hypocritical, indeed quite arrogant?

Too many years in the abyss of debates with atheists, Fred. If the non-believers say they have no beliefs, what is there for them to defend? What would be hypocritical would be for them to say they believe in nothing, and they can prove it. Strangely, you are doing that for them. Lol.

You need to get a grasp on the concept of nullity. Like relativity, it’s hard to conceive…but a logical necessity. Zero has a place in mathematics, but mathematicians recognize that it is conceptually different than any whole number. It has a logical pace, but no substantial being.

Fred M. wrote:Anyway, the difference between myself and some other posters is that I am not saying that I am right and that they are wrong, and nor would I do so in this instance.

That’s right. But you both are implying something that, logically, denies the opposite. One is saying there’s nothing there, and the other is saying there’s something there. You will both just have to learn to live with it.

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:11 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred M. wrote:Saying that "there is no God" is, I can assure you, an "extraordinary claim" so far as an estimated 2.2 billion Christians (a third of the population of the earth alone), an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims and all the followers of countless other religions, together making up at least half the world's population, would tend to suggest that your "null hypothesis" may not be quite so "null" as you would like to think.

You are redefining the terms, and the logical import behind them. “Extraordianary claim” means asserting something, while “null” means a state of negation. Saying there is no god is saying, simply, there is a state of negation. You are trying to assign some import to the expression, when in fact its very meaning is vacuousness.

Fred M. wrote:Isn't saying that believers must prove their belief while non-believers have no need to do so a tad hypocritical, indeed quite arrogant?

Too many years in the abyss of debates with atheists, Fred. If the non-believers say they have no beliefs, what is there for them to defend? What would be hypocritical would be for them to say they believe in nothing, and they can prove it. Strangely, you are doing that for them. Lol.

You need to get a grasp on the concept of nullity. Like relativity, it’s hard to conceive…but a logical necessity. Zero has a place in mathematics, but mathematicians recognize that it is conceptually different than any whole number. It has a logical pace, but no substantial being.

Fred M. wrote:Anyway, the difference between myself and some other posters is that I am not saying that I am right and that they are wrong, and nor would I do so in this instance.

That’s right. But you both are implying something that, logically, denies the opposite. One is saying there’s nothing there, and the other is saying there’s something there. You will both just have to learn to live with it.

Quill, as always I both acknowledge and bow to your obvious skills and eloquent oratory as an advocate.

But in the real world of human intercourse dependent on the meaning and use of ordinary language, and bearing fully in mind the uncomplicated message that Lurker wishes us to accept, it is not unreasonable for a believer of any religion to answer the unequivocal statement that there is no God with the simple response "...then prove it"?

After all, the reverse is certainly true.

by Victorismyhero Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:22 pm

Moley , thanks for that interesting (as ever) reply. Your views, cast in a "christian" mold are not so far removed from mine (cast in a pagan mold). doubtless, a full exposition of these ideas would take far more pages than we have available here, and likely far more time than we would wish to spend on it.

by Victorismyhero Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:23 pm

oh, and to drop a political bomb in here....

halloween and trick or treat = Cultural appropriation.......well actually misappropriation

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:33 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Moley , thanks for that interesting (as ever) reply. Your views, cast in a "christian" mold are not so far removed from mine (cast in a pagan mold). doubtless, a full exposition of these ideas would take far more pages than we have available here, and likely far more time than we would wish to spend on it.

D'accord. And thanks. I was beginning to think that a heretics' mitre and pyre were being prepared for me by the other commentators, with Lurker assuming the role of the red hot poker-wielding Bishop of Bath and Wells in that hilarious episode of Blackadder!

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:38 pm

Lord Foul wrote:oh, and to drop a political bomb in here....

halloween and trick or treat = Cultural appropriation.......well actually misappropriation

More like a mindless adoption of a silly American phenomenon designed specifically to boost retail sales of particularly meaningless items, in my book.

Still, living as I do at the end of a long, dark, tree-lined drive with a spooky old barn half way up it, those objectionable little "trick or treat" urchins wouldn't dare assault my front door!

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:46 pm

Hi Fred did you get a chance to watch?

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t25406-for-fred-patterns-of-evidence-exodus-2014

You would find it very interesting at the evidence from Eygpt, that points to the possibility of the exodus (not the supernatural part) being a historic event. Of a mass exodus of semtic people leaving Eygpt. Even a possible candidate for the biblical charcater Joseph?

by Victorismyhero Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:47 pm

well I dont know about the silly american phenomenom, I tonight have enjoyed a samhain feast, lit a samhain candle and said my prayers for the ancestors

by Original Quill Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:52 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You are redefining the terms, and the logical import behind them. “Extraordianary claim” means asserting something, while “null” means a state of negation. Saying there is no god is saying, simply, there is a state of negation. You are trying to assign some import to the expression, when in fact its very meaning is vacuousness.

Too many years in the abyss of debates with atheists, Fred. If the non-believers say they have no beliefs, what is there for them to defend? What would be hypocritical would be for them to say they believe in nothing, and they can prove it. Strangely, you are doing that for them. Lol.

You need to get a grasp on the concept of nullity. Like relativity, it’s hard to conceive…but a logical necessity. Zero has a place in mathematics, but mathematicians recognize that it is conceptually different than any whole number. It has a logical pace, but no substantial being.

That’s right. But you both are implying something that, logically, denies the opposite. One is saying there’s nothing there, and the other is saying there’s something there. You will both just have to learn to live with it.

Quill, as always I both acknowledge and bow to your obvious skills and eloquent oratory as an advocate.

But in the real world of human intercourse dependent on the meaning and use of ordinary language, and bearing fully in mind the uncomplicated message that Lurker wishes us to accept, it is not unreasonable for a believer of any religion to answer the unequivocal statement that there is no God with the simple response "...then prove it"?

After all, the reverse is certainly true.

Yes, it is unreasonable...in the basic sense of the word. Lurker aside, you are mistaking the reverse for the converse. In other words, you are interpreting the atheist as the reverse of Christianity, when it is something else altogether. The reverse of Christianity is non-Christianity, or Islam or any other religion that replaces Christianity. Atheism is the converse, or the denial of all religion. You are seeking 'an opposition', where in fact, 'a nothing' exists. Hence, you get caught up in trying to prove a vacuum.

Better to just leave the atheist alone, and keep your differences with Buddists or Taoists. Understand: the a-theist doesn't believe in anything, so there is no argument there. You religionists do believe in something, so you can go forth to oppose each other all you want.

Keep in mind though, because you are asserting some thing, you have the obligation of proof, while the atheist can just sit on his hands. But then again, the person asserting some thing, generally ends up with something. So you have your reward, too. Laughing

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2018 7:15 pm

Vintage wrote:I was brought up a bell, book and candles genuflecting Anglican, yet I was always taught to question my faith and respect other faiths but ask questions so I've always been interested in religions. As for the Bible I don't believe its a load of old rubbish by any means but people do look at it the wrong way. I reckon Genesis is just the story of how this planet came about told in an easily understandable way, the rest I think is a sort of self help manual re: food laws, sexual laws etc for a primitive population trying to survive and prosper, interspersed with a history of those struggles, people have of course come along and interpreted those laws and ideas for their own means, usually nefarious and even perhaps translated wrongly or added to, again for their own means.
Do I believe in an omnipotent divine being - no. As Fred said there is a lot to offer in the way of support in a religion and a great deal of good has been done in its name although there's quite a lot of bad done as well.
There was an experiment done on a cardiac ward in the US, half the patients all having a similar problem were prayed for by name at local churches, the other half were not, the patients were told generally that they would be prayed for but not exactly who, the group that were prayed for had a better recovery than those not prayed for, I don't know if this has ever been repeated of if it can really be quantified.
So it could be that certain people have tapped into or been somehow connected with a higher consciousness to learn
this stuff and pass it on however they can, or forward looking people inspired some other way, or a left overs from a previous advanced society that we've lost all memory of and of course there's the aliens helping us along theory.
I do think there is a neutral power or energy that can be tapped into by anyone and repetition of phrases helps to tune in to this as in specific prayers etc, tuning into the frequency.

Just to let you know, I read your post and found it interesting

Seems others skipped over it

My view is simple this.

The deity of the Old testament, Torah and Quran, is to me quite evil, sadistic, jealous, angry, bitter, genocidal etc

To me humans have a far greater capacity for kindness and forgiveness

Its why I think all 3 religious books. Have some bases in history of actual people that lived, but the beliefs around the religious deity itself, are man made beliefs

I mean to me, why would something so intlligence, be so controlled by negative and positive emotions? Which are human traits. It simple does not make any sense and why its simple the beliefs made up by humans. Who are emotional

I have always thought. That if there is a creator God, we would be insiginificant to it. We simple be the by-product of an experiment. The big bang. If life can take hold after long periods on any planet. Humans simple are arrogant in their belief they are some how speical over all other species and yet we do such experiments on animals ourselves for scientific understanding and knowledge.

If there is a deity or deities, we simple are lab rats.

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Oct 31, 2018 7:19 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Quill, as always I both acknowledge and bow to your obvious skills and eloquent oratory as an advocate.

But in the real world of human intercourse dependent on the meaning and use of ordinary language, and bearing fully in mind the uncomplicated message that Lurker wishes us to accept, it is not unreasonable for a believer of any religion to answer the unequivocal statement that there is no God with the simple response "...then prove it"?

After all, the reverse is certainly true.

Yes, it is unreasonable...in the basic sense of the word. Lurker aside, you are mistaking the reverse for the converse. In other words, you are interpreting the atheist as the reverse of Christianity, when it is something else altogether. The reverse of Christianity is non-Christianity, or Islam or any other religion that replaces Christianity. Atheism is the converse, or the denial of all religion. You are seeking 'an opposition', where in fact, 'a nothing' exists. Hence, you get caught up in trying to prove a vacuum.

Better to just leave the atheist alone, and keep your differences with Buddists or Taoists. Understand: the a-theist doesn't believe in anything, so there is no argument there. You religionists do believe in something, so you can go forth to oppose each other all you want.

Keep in mind though, because you are asserting some thing, you have the obligation of proof, while the atheist can just sit on his hands. But then again, the person asserting some thing, generally ends up with something. So you have your reward, too.

No, not so Quill. I have acknowledged the legitimacy of Islam and every other religion....Shintoism, Taoism, Buddhism, et al...and together with Christianity, the adherents make up at least half the world's population.

And each and every one of us, by definition, agrees in a god; a deity; a supreme being.

Half of you don't.

We no more have to "prove" our belief than you have to "prove" your non-belief.

An unstoppable force meeting an immovable object, and all that....

Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

And yes, I do have something....my belief, inadequate and questioning though it may be.

by Original Quill Thu Nov 01, 2018 2:07 am

Fred M. wrote:Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

That's exactly right. The only way to oppose someone espousing the null hypothesis of religion, is to establish the existence of your god. So far, you've not been able to do that.

Fred M. wrote:And yes, I do have something....my belief, inadequate and questioning though it may be.

There you go.

by Sponsored content