The Religion Thread

[silkyman]

No, that's completely illogical. The belief that there is no logical reason to believe that a deity exists is completely different from the belief that we have the means to prove or falsify the existence of one. There's nothing we could learn about the natural world which would preclude or prove the existence of an undetectable super-being, therefore the only logical position is to accept that the existence of one is possible, regardless of how bizarre or unlikely it is.



Again, you're confusing belief with knowledge. You believe that the threesome won't happen, you're probably right, but that doesn't mean you should believe that you have the ability to know that it won't happen. You can't invoke logical argument when it suits and then just dismiss it when it doesn't. If you accept that you are incapable of disproving the existence of something (and you are), then the only logical recourse is to admit that it could exist, regardless of how unlikely you believe that to be.

If you have a means to disprove the existence of "God", then feel free to share. But simply understanding the natural world is not going to cut it.

So by the same rationale then, you agree that every God ever devised by man 'could' exist, as 'could' anything at all that any fever dream imagination could construct, just because you can't 'disprove' it. Every Christian is a Poseidon Agnostic.

Russell's teapot again.

But on the first bit. The first people to come up with the idea of gods, did so to explain why things happen. The Old Testament begins with God creating the universe. Creation and The Creator are inherently linked. If God didn't create the universe, if he didn't create life and if he didn't create humanity (which I will list separately to 'life' because that what Christianity does) then what did he do? And more to the point, if he didn't 'do' anything. Didn't create the universe with the ultimate aim of populating the earth and all that gubbins, then why would he care?

If he does exist, as you seem to want me to accept is a possibility, then it's as a timeless, infinite being. Why the sudden interest 13 billion years into the life of the Universe, in one tiny blue dot where the cumulative history of humanity will be less than a fraction of a blink when viewed through the lens of the lifespan of the entirety of everything. And why focus on one small part of that tiny blink of time on that blue dot after several thousand years of religion in any form among humans to finally show his face about 3,500 years ago - leaving all those cultures that the average man on the street had no idea even existed - completely alone.

Wouldn't a genuinely infinite being not have a slightly wider view than a couple of hundred square miles on one corner of the Mediterranean?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

So by the same rationale then, you agree that every God ever devised by man 'could' exist, as 'could' anything at all that any fever dream imagination could construct, just because you can't 'disprove' it. Every Christian is a Poseidon Agnostic.

Absolutely.

Russell's teapot again.

But on the first bit. The first people to come up with the idea of gods, did so to explain why things happen. The Old Testament begins with God creating the universe. Creation and The Creator are inherently linked. If God didn't create the universe, if he didn't create life and if he didn't create humanity (which I will list separately to 'life' because that what Christianity does) then what did he do? And more to the point, if he didn't 'do' anything. Didn't create the universe with the ultimate aim of populating the earth and all that gubbins, then why would he care?

If he does exist, as you seem to want me to accept is a possibility, then it's as a timeless, infinite being. Why the sudden interest 13 billion years into the life of the Universe, in one tiny blue dot where the cumulative history of humanity will be less than a fraction of a blink when viewed through the lens of the lifespan of the entirety of everything. And why focus on one small part of that tiny blink of time on that blue dot after several thousand years of religion in any form among humans to finally show his face about 3,500 years ago - leaving all those cultures that the average man on the street had no idea even existed - completely alone.

Wouldn't a genuinely infinite being not have a slightly wider view than a couple of hundred square miles on one corner of the Mediterranean?

Again, you're talking about belief, not knowledge. Russell's teapot has nothing to do with agnosticism, it's about illustrating why the burden of proof lies with the theist, instead of the atheist. That's a question of whether God exists or not, not whether we can know or not.

 

[JimJams]

I should imagine Silky that if there were indeed a god or godlike entity then time is not of consequence as theoretically if a being created everything then time has no baring on anything does it?
You also seem to argue the point against a Christian view of god which is not what Eb or others on here are addressing. You're asking why he doesn't care, why he'd be bothered about this and that, nobody is saying that he does or is unless you're talking about religion. It seems you're now confusing things by bringing religion into your arguments against the possibility of a god/god/godlike entity. If I'm open to the possibility of a god, your counter argument seems to be to dismiss the belief that a certain religion holds about God which doesn't have any baring on an atheist or Agnostics belief or more acceptance that there is the possibility.

 

[Stagat]

If he does exist, as you seem to want me to accept is a possibility, then it's as a timeless, infinite being. Why the sudden interest 13 billion years into the life of the Universe, in one tiny blue dot where the cumulative history of humanity will be less than a fraction of a blink when viewed through the lens of the lifespan of the entirety of everything. And why focus on one small part of that tiny blink of time on that blue dot after several thousand years of religion in any form among humans to finally show his face about 3,500 years ago - leaving all those cultures that the average man on the street had no idea even existed - completely alone.

Wouldn't a genuinely infinite being not have a slightly wider view than a couple of hundred square miles on one corner of the Mediterranean?

You're looking at it through human eyes though. You said He's a timeless, infinite being, so 13 billion years to Him might be as a nanosecond is to you or me, or five years (or however old people are when they get a goldfish), or whatever.

Dunno why people assume we're His magnum opus either. A timeless, infinite being. He's got loads of time to make shit. We might just be the trial run.

Why would He concentrate on a couple of hundred square miles next to the Mediterranean in the beginning? Why not. Seems as good a place to start as any. Nice weather. Plenty of olives. Better than, say, Canadian tundra or African desert, for me.

I just don't think you can use our arbitrary notion of time in relation to Him. The universe might still be 13 billion years old but that doesn't mean we're not like His first goldfish or summat.

The eventual death of the Sun is about when He needs to change the light bulb for the first time.

Lord Shiva has already put his dancing shoes on and smashed up the goldfish bowl on at least one occasion for Brahma to make another, by the way.

Why has it taken Him 13 billion years to be bothered? Dunno, but He's timeless and infinite, so 13 billion of our years is no biggie.

 

[JimJams]

Because Silks is applying the religious view of god and is dismissing that, but considers that to be the answer to dismiss the concept of an entity that created life, the universe and everything.

 

[HertsWolf]

Why would He concentrate on a couple of hundred square miles next to the Mediterranean in the beginning? Why not. Seems as good a place to start as any. Nice weather. Plenty of olives. Better than, say, Canadian tundra or African desert, for me.

God did consider starting it all off in the Black Country, apparently. The reason was that there's plenty of real ale and with him being a founder member of CAMRA and that, it looked promising. But there's a lot of rain and Easyjet did flights to Israel, Babylon and Egypt for less than £20, so it was a no-brainer.

Another possibility was at Sodom, but there was always going to be problems basing a world religion on the desires of Sodomites, tbf.

So, yeh. A small corner of the Middle East got chosen over the Dudley/Tipton/Wolverhampton area...such is life.

 

[SUTSS]

I think PR has been mentioned wrt the lords already. Personally I would find it weird to have a PR lords over commons...having a PR lords and FPTP commons seems stupid to me. Plus that still wouldn't eliminate brown-nosing to get people into favourable positions. The only way to do that would be to have a truly random system...which again I wouldn't want as it would genuinely mean anyone above a certain age could be in the lords which I'm uneasy with.

I'm not sure how you could do it but id like to see a lords where specialists were appointed to advice and pass laws on specialist issues.

Have the Lords like jury service. Random people picked and they have to serve for 2 years.

 

[Womble98]

A large number of atheists I know are more than happy to retain the traditions of Christianity because lets face it, thats what it pretty much is these days. Even Dawkins' describes himself as a cultural christian or something similar.

 

[Womble98]

Have the Lords like jury service. Random people picked and they have to serve for 2 years.

It makes far more sense to have experts in the house of lords. Each institution like the Royal Academy of Engineering and so on should have a representative in the House of Lords. Fill it with genuine experts not ponced up morons.

 

[blade1889]

It makes far more sense to have experts in the house of lords. Each institution like the Royal Academy of Engineering and so on should have a representative in the House of Lords. Fill it with genuine experts not ponced up morons.

^ basically that is the reason I poo-pooed it earlier. Plus the only people I would want randomly being assigned to the lords would probably be ones whose jobs dictate they couldn't have 2 years 'off' working there.

 

[SUTSS]

It wasn't a serious suggestion but it would be a good way of making sure all sections of society are represented.

 

[blade1889]

It wasn't a serious suggestion but it would be a good way of making sure all sections of society are represented.

Would it? Only if it was compulsory for absolutely anyone chosen and I don't think that'd be a good idea...doctors? Nurses? Teachers? People in the army?

 

[Aber gas]

I can see the benefits of this idea chaps but there would still be the problem of political bias. I feel it would be nigh on impossible to have experts who were completely objective and untainted by political prejudice of one persuasion or another.

 

[blade1889]

I can see the benefits of this idea chaps but there would still be the problem of political bias. I feel it would be nigh on impossible to have experts who were completely objective and untainted by political prejudice of one persuasion or another.

Totally, bring in a teacher to talk about government sending and clearly they'll want it spent on schools. Doctors with hospitals etc. etc. But then in a room of 150 people that one biased vote would get drowned out but their opinions heard.

There ain't ever gonna be a perfect solution. Cant really see many practical solutions out there tbh.

 

[SUTSS]

Would it? Only if it was compulsory for absolutely anyone chosen and I don't think that'd be a good idea...doctors? Nurses? Teachers? People in the army?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

 

[Aber gas]

Totally, bring in a teacher to talk about government sending and clearly they'll want it spent on schools. Doctors with hospitals etc. etc. But then in a room of 150 people that one biased vote would get drowned out but their opinions heard.

There ain't ever gonna be a perfect solution. Cant really see many practical solutions out there tbh.

I was thinking more of an ideological bias than a direct correlation between their views and area of expertise. For example a widely recognised engineer could be appointed but they might also be a rabid free marketeer which would inform their decisions. FWiW I don't think it's a terrible idea, I think it would need a big change constitutionally in regards to the way the second chamber is used and its relationship to the commons.

 

[SUTSS]

Totally, bring in a teacher to talk about government sending and clearly they'll want it spent on schools. Doctors with hospitals etc. etc. But then in a room of 150 people that one biased vote would get drowned out but their opinions heard.

There ain't ever gonna be a perfect solution. Cant really see many practical solutions out there tbh.

Also, it has seriously been suggested as a way of reforming the lords. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Athenian-Option-Radical-Sortition/dp/1845401395

 

[blade1889]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

Yeah I understand the ideas behind it and what it is...

Not necessarily arguing it is bad in principle just don't see it working for something like the HoL. The modern uses for sortition are all very short-term from what I can tell. 1-2 weeks at the most as opposed to 1-2 years that it would probably require to form any sort of cohesive second house.

 

[blade1889]

I was thinking more of an ideological bias than a direct correlation between their views and area of expertise. For example a widely recognised engineer could be appointed but they might also be a rabid free marketeer which would inform their decisions. FWiW I don't think it's a terrible idea, I think it would need a big change constitutionally in regards to the way the second chamber is used and its relationship to the commons.

That's the idea of it being random though, isn't it? So that you get strong views from across the population?

As above, it ain't the principles I disagree with but the practicalities.

 

[Aber gas]

That's the idea of it being random though, isn't it? So that you get strong views from across the population?

As above, it ain't the principles I disagree with but the practicalities.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here mate, my objections were based mainly on the idea of guilds and associations appointing representatives to a second chamber not a random selection. Sorry, I think I've got a bit confused.

 

[blade1889]

I think we're talking at cross purposes here mate, my objections were based mainly on the idea of guilds and associations appointing representatives to a second chamber not a random selection. Sorry, I think I've got a bit confused.

Ah, my bad and confusion.

I guess it goes back to Herts' earlier points. I think any system with someone being appointed will be open to abuse and brown-nosing tbf

 

[silkyman]

Absolutely.

In which case, Agnosticism isn't a belief structure or philosophy, but a basic law of physics. About everything. Everyone on the planet is an Agnostic about Scientology. Which renders it an utterly meaningless term. I'm agnostic about whether I'll win the lottery this weekend, until Saturday night when I stop being. The most devout 'young earth' creationist in the world is Agnostic about the existence of God. Because you can't know what is unknowable.

Again, you're talking about belief, not knowledge. Russell's teapot has nothing to do with agnosticism, it's about illustrating why the burden of proof lies with the theist, instead of the atheist. That's a question of whether God exists or not, not whether we can know or not.

It means that by your definition, everyone is Agnostic. It served it's purpose back when you tried to claim that belief in God was somehow different to belief in said celestial beverage container.

 

[JimJams]

Well no because people that believe in a specific portrayal of god ie the religious, and those that absolutely do not believe there is a god are not agnostic are they? Agnostics accept they can't/don't know, others believe they can/do.

 

[silkyman]

You're looking at it through human eyes though. You said He's a timeless, infinite being, so 13 billion years to Him might be as a nanosecond is to you or me, or five years (or however old people are when they get a goldfish), or whatever.

Dunno why people assume we're His magnum opus either. A timeless, infinite being. He's got loads of time to make shit. We might just be the trial run.

Why would He concentrate on a couple of hundred square miles next to the Mediterranean in the beginning? Why not. Seems as good a place to start as any. Nice weather. Plenty of olives. Better than, say, Canadian tundra or African desert, for me.

I just don't think you can use our arbitrary notion of time in relation to Him. The universe might still be 13 billion years old but that doesn't mean we're not like His first goldfish or summat.

The eventual death of the Sun is about when He needs to change the light bulb for the first time.

Lord Shiva has already put his dancing shoes on and smashed up the goldfish bowl on at least one occasion for Brahma to make another, by the way.

Why has it taken Him 13 billion years to be bothered? Dunno, but He's timeless and infinite, so 13 billion of our years is no biggie.

But if science proves (and it will, unless they discover that oh, this time it really WAS God.. Wow.) that the universe was created by the mathematically modelled 'big bang', and that life started with a random group of chemicals in the right situation at the right time, then God will not have had any input into, well, anything. How is he going to 'change the bulb' when he didn't put it there in the first place?

So he was around before the universe began? Just waiting? Then didn't do anything until he dropped down to do a bit of flooding here and there and make up some stuff about how it was all him really, and in seven days, like. Then did various horrific things, fucked off, send his son down and fucked off again, never to be seen again.

I asked the question earlier about followers of other religions who are all going to go to hell... Isn't that a bit of a c***'s trick? To send someone to hell for not following a religion that hasn't been invented yet?

He's an omnipotent being who has also had no bearing at all on the creation of the universe and apparently lied in the bible for a bit.

 

[JimJams]

You seem to really be missing the point. I can't tell if it's deliberate or not.

 

[silkyman]

Because Silks is applying the religious view of god and is dismissing that, but considers that to be the answer to dismiss the concept of an entity that created life, the universe and everything.

So there is a God, but every religion is wrong about hi?

 

[JimJams]

Not "There is". But "We're open to the possibility that there is".
How unlikely that may be is an irrelevance.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

In which case, Agnosticism isn't a belief structure or philosophy, but a basic law of physics. About everything. Everyone on the planet is an Agnostic about Scientology. Which renders it an utterly meaningless term. I'm agnostic about whether I'll win the lottery this weekend, until Saturday night when I stop being. The most devout 'young earth' creationist in the world is Agnostic about the existence of God. Because you can't know what is unknowable.

Er, no. Agnosticism is not the state of not knowing, it's the belief that you can't know. Some people believe there is a God and they know there is, some people believe there's no God and they know there isn't, and some people don't know but still believe it's something that's knowable. These people are not agnostics.

It means that by your definition, everyone is Agnostic. It served it's purpose back when you tried to claim that belief in God was somehow different to belief in said celestial beverage container.

I didn't claim anything of the sort.

 

[silkyman]

You seem to really be missing the point. I can't tell if it's deliberate or not.

What is the point? That we can't know what's unknowable? That the mere supernatural nature of any possible God makes him impossible to comprehend?

If we don't need a God for the universe or life to exist, why would there be one?

When religions were formed, God seemed the more likely explanation. So Gods were created. Either one who did it all, or one to explain each thing. Interesting that as humanity progressed and learned more about the world, the multi god collectives gave way to one guy who kicked it all off then watched.

As I've said before, God used to bring volcanoes, earthquakes, wine, and The Fruit of the Ivy. Now they don't.

 

[silkyman]

Not "There is". But "We're open to the possibility that there is".
How unlikely that may be is an irrelevance.

As long as you are also open to the possibility that absolutely anything anyone can think of is also real.

Star Wars was based on a true story, because George Lucas is actually Luke Skywalker transported through a wormhole. He only keeps quiet about it for fear of being branded a loon. Possible? Yes?