The great and all powerful religion thread!

[cookiecutter]

It's debatable, but I think there is enough evidence to support Jesus' existence.

 

[Zephyrus]

The Romans kept good records, including government-sanctioned executions in the provinces. That included Judaea. It's in the books that a man named Jesus from Nazareth was crucified in the early first century AD. There is also an account by the historian Josephus, who wrote contemporarily to the time of Jesus.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

I find the religious beliefs of Catholicism to be just as valid as the fundamental belief in God's existence, which cannot be proven. In fact, the New Testament parallels factual history in many instances.

HP lovecraft designed his fictional works so that other authors mentioned the necronomicon. The result was many people beliving it to be a real book.

Any religion that hopes to survive needs some sort of historical facts in order to maintain a semblance of integrity.

 

[Zephyrus]

See above post.

 

[Cythraul]

Do you have evidence some of us don't have or something that could lean towards a belief in a god and away from the absolute comprehension that there is no such thing as a god? AFAIK there is NO evidence of God existing or not existing. There is nothing you can say you 100% rely on in terms of "evidence" for the existence/non-existence of a god. Therefore, it makes sense, if you doubt the existence of a god without evidence to support him, to be an atheist who will not change until science or the human scope of logic can fundamentally prove its existence through repeated testing. There's no other objective and/or critical way to test the existence of things, so this is what must be done to finally "prove" god.

You must have some kind of lingering faith which dictates that you do not drift into absolute (with respect to human experience and the incredibly small chance that science can and will somehow touch "God") defiance of the idea of a god existing. I'd suggest you leave this faith since a). it doesn't help you, you're already halfway away from believing, which, to "God" is as good as not believing at all, and b). atheism makes more sense in this case.

Are you talking to me? That post is bullshit. Hold those thoughts and I'll dissect them later.

There is some evidence for the existence of the Christian god?

I NEVER FUCKING MADE THAT CLAIM. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING CHRISTIAN GOD.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Yes I was talking to you, and I await your (probably retarded) reply.

 

[Cythraul]

Yes I was talking to you, and I await your (probably retarded) reply.

Probably retarded reply? Who the fuck do you think you are? First of all, I'm smarter than you. Second of all, I'm pretty fucking sure I have a hell of a lot more experience with this topic than you do. Third of all, don't fucking condescend to me just because you read some Dawkins crap and just discovered the notion of a logical fallacy last week, you little fuck.

 

[Matt]

Of course, I disagree on a lot of things with some religions (like Catholicism and their stances on contraception and abortion) as well...

Me too. I have a lot of problems with Catholicism. (And most of the extremely conservative Christian sects)

Why don't you believe in the Asatru gods or any other Gods?

This is why I'm starting to lean towards the Transcendentalist philosophy of the Over-Soul

If there was a god he certainly would not care about nor intervene in daily matters.

Hah I almost agree with that

 

[King Richard]

Probably retarded reply? Who the fuck do you think you are? First of all, I'm smarter than you. Second of all, I'm pretty fucking sure I have a hell of a lot more experience with this topic than you do. Third of all, don't fucking condescend to me just because you read some Dawkins crap and just discovered the notion of a logical fallacy last week, you little fuck.

That was the most hilarious thing I've ever read. (please don't yell at me )



Maybe it's just me, but the notion that humans should physically prove god exists or does not exist (which mostly likely is impossible and should be given the information we associate with god) for the purpose of supporting one's faith or non-faith is hilariously retarded.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

I'm pretty sure "discovering god" by scientific means would contradict faith and the religion to begin with.

 

[King Richard]

Which is exactly my point.

Also, I can't seem to understand how these religion threads always fill so many pages. The same people argue about the same stuff when the only thing both sides need to do is say, "Hey I believe." "And I don't." /thread

 

[cookiecutter]

It's fun

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Probably retarded reply? Who the fuck do you think you are? First of all, I'm smarter than you. Second of all, I'm pretty fucking sure I have a hell of a lot more experience with this topic than you do. Third of all, don't fucking condescend to me just because you read some Dawkins crap and just discovered the notion of a logical fallacy last week, you little fuck.

 

[Cythraul]

Do you have evidence some of us don't have or something that could lean towards a belief in a god and away from the absolute comprehension that there is no such thing as a god? AFAIK there is NO evidence of God existing or not existing. There is nothing you can say you 100% rely on in terms of "evidence" for the existence/non-existence of a god. Therefore, it makes sense, if you doubt the existence of a god without evidence to support him, to be an atheist who will not change until science or the human scope of logic can fundamentally prove its existence through repeated testing. There's no other objective and/or critical way to test the existence of things, so this is what must be done to finally "prove" god.

I'm sure I'm in possession of no more evidence than most other people are. Your first point is a complete misinterpretation of what I meant, but it's perfectly understandable why one would make that mistake (and at any rate, I've said things in earlier posts that I would probably retract). I am simply claiming that any purported evidence that has been adduced and which I am in possession of is not compelling to me (at least regarding certain relevant propositions about these matters).

You must have some kind of lingering faith which dictates that you do not drift into absolute (with respect to human experience and the incredibly small chance that science can and will somehow touch "God") defiance of the idea of a god existing. I'd suggest you leave this faith since a). it doesn't help you, you're already halfway away from believing, which, to "God" is as good as not believing at all, and b). atheism makes more sense in this case.

First of all, don't be so damn presumptuous. I have absolutely no lingering faith, and my position regarding the existence of God implies that anyway.

Second of all, you clearly think I should take some additional step with regard to my belief about the existence of God which I have not yet taken, but I don't think it's justified. I said that I suspend my judgment with regard to the existence of God. If you understand what this means then you should know that that entails the following proposition.

(1) I do not believe that God exists.

Is that not good enough for you? What is this extra step that you think I should be taking? If it's nothing more than the acceptance of proposition (1), then there is no reason for you to be arguing with me, since said proposition is already something that applies truly to me. The only other logical possibility I can imagine is the following proposition.

(2) I believe that God does not exist.

Propositions (1) and (2) do not have the same truth conditions. Therefore, they require different justifications. The only justification one needs for (1) is lack of confirming evidence for the existence of God. The justification for proposition (2) has to come in the form of confirming evidence for the nonexistence of God. However, there can be no such evidence. Therefore, there is no epistemic-normative obligation for me to take the step you want me to take (assuming that is what you want me to do). In fact, on my view, such a step is not even justified.

 

[cookiecutter]

I subscribe to proposition (1) generally about God, but (2) for the gods of most religions

 

[Manic Ferocity]

I think he was implying that proposition (2) is impossible.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Hah I almost agree with that

You and Einstien both.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I'm sure I'm in possession of no more evidence than most other people are. Your first point is a complete misinterpretation of what I meant, but it's perfectly understandable why one would make that mistake (and at any rate, I've said things in earlier posts that I would probably retract). I am simply claiming that any purported evidence that has been adduced and which I am in possession of is not compelling to me (at least regarding certain relevant propositions about these matters).



First of all, don't be so damn presumptuous. I have absolutely no lingering faith, and my position regarding the existence of God implies that anyway.

Second of all, you clearly think I should take some additional step with regard to my belief about the existence of God which I have not yet taken, but I don't think it's justified. I said that I suspend my judgment with regard to the existence of God. If you understand what this means then you should know that that entails the following proposition.

(1) I do not believe that God exists.

Is that not good enough for you? What is this extra step that you think I should be taking? If it's nothing more than the acceptance of proposition (1), then there is no reason for you to be arguing with me, since said proposition is already something that applies truly to me. The only other logical possibility I can imagine is the following proposition.

(2) I believe that God does not exist.

Propositions (1) and (2) do not have the same truth conditions. Therefore, they require different justifications. The only justification one needs for (1) is lack of confirming evidence for the existence of God. The justification for proposition (2) has to come in the form of confirming evidence for the nonexistence of God. However, there can be no such evidence. Therefore, there is no epistemic-normative obligation for me to take the step you want me to take (assuming that is what you want me to do). In fact, on my view, such a step is not even justified.

But you still have not explained why you are agnostic and not atheist. I have a feeling the reasoning lies in your stated propositions, but I'm not really sure what you are getting at.

 

[Cythraul]

But you still have not explained why you are agnostic and not atheist. I have a feeling the reasoning lies in your stated propositions, but I'm not really sure what you are getting at.

It depends on how you define atheism and agnosticism. Usually agnosticism is nothing more than what one might consider a soft version of atheism. I only accept proposition (1), not both (1) and (2). That is, in an important sense, suspending judgment with respect to the existence of God. I call myself an agnostic to dissociate myself from a certain hard-headed brand of atheism because I think it's unjustified. You can call me an atheist if you want, but I think whatever sort of atheism I can be said to adhere to comes to basically the same thing as agnosticism.

edit: plus I take issue with the idea that there is or can be knowledge regarding these matters. There is, however, an asymmetry between the various relevant propositions. For instance, I do not think there is knowledge of God's existence at this time, but I don't think that it is logically impossible for there to be such knowledge. On the other hand, I do not think there is knowledge of God's nonexistence at this time and I also think that in principle there never can be such knowledge.

 

[cookiecutter]

I think at least the Judeo-Christian god can be ruled out due to logical paradoxes and contradictory evidence against the Bible/Koran