[Closed] "I asked God to help me"

I think you will find our post count was pretty even, so it's a pretty even share of blame. (if there is any, I am interested in the whole field of offense/insult and thought I might learn something). I wasn't going to say anymore until you implied it was my fault we descended into a discussion that send the thread elsewhere. So don't start and I won't respond, fair enough? (BTW that did annoy me if you want to find ways of pissing me off)

Molgrips, Yes I agree entirely, but you wouldn't need to be colour blind to think it was all a conspiracy to trick you though would you?

My point is that what you are driving at is an entirely different area of thought..

You decide to abandon your beliefs becasue a few people who hold the same beliefs as you are a bit rude?

Was that not a joke?

Yes it was.

But I was [trying to] point out that.

Me saying I was Abandoning my Atheist beliefs and going to church because some Atheists behave in a way I don't like would be pretty stupid.

In fact it would almost as stupid as a Christian being convinced that there religion is somehow inherently Evil, by someone posting pictures of some idiots holding banners saying "God hates Fags"

I wasn't going to say anymore until you implied it was my fault

I didn't imply that it was your fault. Or at least, I didn't mean to. Reading back though, I can see how that could have been misrepresentative, for which I apologise.

sorry nealglover the humour went straight over my head!

Well I dunno. Those who see God all around are looking at the same things as those who see simple reality, but drawing different conclusions. It's about the interpretation of evidence, isn't it? Sensory and otherwise.

Well I dunno. Those who see God all around are looking at the same things as those who see simple reality, but drawing different conclusions. It's about the interpretation of evidence, isn't it? Sensory and otherwise.

In understand what you are trying to say but as someone above quoted Dawkins - if you see god " it's a hallucination".

Do you know about postmodernism?

molgrips - Member

Well I dunno. Those who see God all around are looking at the same things as those who see simple reality, but drawing different conclusions. It's about the interpretation of evidence, isn't it? Sensory and otherwise.

What evidence? - thats the point -there is no evidence for God at all.

What evidence? - thats the point -there is no evidence for God at all.

I got a bit of a shock this morning when I made some toast

[img] ?w=470[/img]

I knelt down and repented...........stuff like that doesn't just "happen".

You repented! My god!

Wow, Lemmy on a piece of toast.

Thats amazing

I certainly did TJ......there was a strange aura around me today at work

[img] [/img]

How would you know it wasn't all a conspiracy to trick you?

You're on the road to solipsism with that one. Is that where you want to go?

Mr Woppit - Member
The jesus religion was just one of several competing with each other in the classical world at that time - Mithraism, for instance - which all shared the same story line. Prediction/fullfillment/miracles/dying to save others/going to heaven etc etc...

The only reason the xtian fairy story gained traction, was because the Roman Emperor Constantine adopted it and enforced it as a state religion.

Nothing to do with any "god" intervention...

Woppit - now that really is interesting. So let's assume in the words of Nietzsche that, "God is Dead", and that The Bible (and other religious texts) are nice bits of literature, poems, stories, histories etc but not the word of any divine being.

Why the need for Christianity (or other religions) to be "created" by humans? How and why has it endured?. As you say, perhaps it was a reaction to the moral values of the Classical world. What do we get from the Odyssey and the Iliad? A picture of a world where the moral code was based on honour, shame and heroism in battle. And Aristotle, a founder of Virtue Ethics, arguing that slavery was a morally justifiable thing!!! So the powerless, the slaves and the weak, were envious (not surprisingly) of the powerful and they channelled their feeling towards a new moral code based on protection of the weak, kindness, generosity and guilt at wrongdoing.....and what became of this....the "Christian" virtues of looking after the weak and the helpless...reinforced by the State (perhaps?)

Fast forward a couple of Centuries and we get Nietzche's infamous prononcement and the rejection of these accepted values (and shall we say, those "adopted" by Christianity for convenience) and if some posts here are to be believed a rejection of the Church as the basis of morality (seems pretty plausible this?). What replaces it according to Nietzche...individuals could now create their own set of moral values and develop their own style of living (hmm, again sounds familiar).

And then the scary bit, the circle is completed and what replaces the old set of values...the old Classical ones, the rise of the powerful, the pain of the weak, the false heros....the nightmare in Nietzsche's time of "the master-race". So are Homer's heros who trod all over the weak now the 0.1% who control the world's wealth? Perhaps we should be careful what we wish for...!!!

If say, you are colour blind, and I tell you a green ball and a red ball are different colours, is there any way I can conclusively prove it to you?

Thats interesting I'll have to think about that for a minute.

Yes by measuring wavelength. Try again

Easier then that, write red on the red ball, green on the green ball. Give both balls to the colour blind person, so that only they can see the writing, and you can only see the ball. You close your eyes, they mix up the balls. And you can tell which one is which every single time.

Although it depends on your idea of proof - that's not a proper proof in my eyes, but it would be enough to convince a standard human. Equally you can say you have a person with perfect vision, how do you prove to them that the balls are different, when philosophically speaking, how can we ever know that any observation is really true?

If say, you are colour blind, and I tell you a green ball and a red ball are different colours, is there any way I can conclusively prove it to you?

Oi, lay of the colourblind - you'll picking on the meek next!

If say, you are colour blind, and I tell you a green ball and a red ball are different colours, is there any way I can conclusively prove it to you?

What makes you think you've got it right?

What evidence? - thats the point -there is no evidence for God at all.

“I am walking proof of the power of prayer. For 78 minutes I was dead and even if I lived was expected to have suffered brain damage.
“But I’m very much alive and sitting here talking now. Someone up there was watching over me. On the morning of the game I prayed with my father and asked God to protect me — and he didn’t let me down.”

Easier then that, write red on the red ball, green on the green ball. Give both balls to the colour blind person, so that only they can see the writing, and you can only see the ball. You close your eyes, they mix up the balls. And you can tell which one is which every single time.

What about if the balls were on a conveyor belt?

Why the need for Christianity (or other religions) to be "created" by humans?

Power and control of the masses?

How and why has it endured?

Primarily, religious parents raise religious children. Also, some religions have more insidious laws to ensure its survival; the death penalty for apostasy for example.

Power and control of the masses?

That doesn't add up there is evidence of religion from 40,000 years ago and I don't think there were masses then.

And then the scary bit, the circle is completed and what replaces the old set of values...the old Classical ones, the rise of the powerful, the pain of the weak, the false heros....the nightmare in Nietzsche's time of "the master-race". So are Homer's heros who trod all over the weak now the 0.1% who control the world's wealth? Perhaps we should be careful what we wish for...!!!

Right - so once again we have it - morality can only come from Christianity. its Christianity or Nazism there is no other answer.

😆 🙄

Also, some religions have more insidious laws to ensure its survival; the death penalty for apostasy for example.

Until a few hundred years ago the catholic church regularly burned people for heresy. I sometimes think its more important to rememeber the heretics than those who died in ww2.

How and why has it endured?

People are afraid of death.

On the contrary TJ - that whole line of argument rejects Christianity as anything other than an outcome of the rejection of the moral values of the classical world. Pretty much what Woppit was arguing.

Nazism - now that's interesting again. The Nazi's obviously used Nietszche's ideas. But arguably that was due to his anti-semitic sister who (in fine STW tradition) was (apparently) a master of selected editing (when he lost his sanity) rather than him. Far too simplistic to equate the two N's.

But his ideas and rejection of Christianity were both exciting and challenging at the same time depending on your perspective. Exciting in that you did not need (indeed you had to reject official) religions as the basis of morality but frightening in his conclusions....the Ubermensch (which he based in Darwinism). Life is full of these funny coincidences but never black and white!!

On the contrary TJ - that whole line of argument rejects Christianity as anything other than an outcome of the rejection of the moral values of the classical world. Pretty much what Woppit was arguing.

Nazism - now that's interesting again. The Nazi's obviously used Nietszche's ideas. But arguably that was due to his anti-semitic sister who (in fine STW tradition) was (apparently) a master of selected editing (when he lost his sanity) rather than him. Far too simplistic to equate the two N's.

But his ideas and rejection of Christianity were both exciting and challenging at the same time depending on your perspective. Exciting in that you did not need (indeed you had to reject official) religions as the basis of morality but frightening in his conclusions....the Ubermensch (which he based in Darwinism). Life is full of these funny coincidences but never black and white!!

But this is the critical analysis branch of sociology isn't it, which frankly has as much validity as God in my eyes..

What evidence? - thats the point -there is no evidence for God at all.

Says you. A lot of people disagree. But wait, let me guess - they're all wrong, aren't they? 😆

philosophically speaking, how can we ever know that any observation is really true?

That's what I am getting at. Simplistic, of course, but it nicely allows religion to exist, intellectually speaking, doens't it?

Says you. A lot of people disagree. But wait, let me guess - they're all wrong, aren't they?

Please present us with some of this evidence that these people who disagree will have?

molgrips you are a scientist and you know there is no objective empirical evidence for god. It is not a point to be ignored it s critical - even they accept this hence faith and what it means to them.

People swear by horoscopes, homoeopathy, and the power of prayer it does not mean they are real. It is not just 2says" you " which is rather simplistic [ playground level almost] as a reply.

philosophically speaking, how can we ever know that any observation is really true

That's what I am getting at. Simplistic, of course, but it nicely allows religion to exist, intellectually speaking, doens't it?

In truth, we can't know for sure either way. However with there being simply infinite possibilites, our chances of believing the right one are 0. So might as well just forget it all and have fun.

Please present us with some of this evidence that these people who disagree will have?

How am I supposed to do that? I'm not one of them!

molgrips you are a scientist and you know there is no objective empirical evidence for god.

I am not aware of any evidence, no.

But yet again, let me re-iterate my point:

[b]Choosing to believe does not necessarily mean you are stupid.[/b]

that's not a proper proof[B] in my eyes,[/b] but it would be enough to convince a [b]standard human[/b].

I'm somewhat perplexed by this statement.

Am I to presume you are some kind of "non standard" build ?

molgrips - Member

"What evidence? - thats the point -there is no evidence for God at all".

Says you. A lot of people disagree. But wait, let me guess - they're all wrong, aren't they?

Really - what is this evidence then. I have had this debate a fair bit over the years and I have been offered the bible and flowers as evidence of gods existance. got anything a bit better to offer?

Well I would be convinced by it, but it wouldn't really have proved it to me. Just like I'm convinced by evolution - but they haven't been proved.

got anything a bit better to offer?

That there is something instead of nothing? The big bang comes from some kinda mumbo jumbo in a quantum vacuum or something, so even when there was nothing (before the big bang) there were rules. Where did these rules come from?

(If you can't tell, I'm not in any way a physicist, and only have a vague understanding of this stuff.)

double post

As you say, perhaps it was a reaction to the moral values of the Classical world. What do we get from the Odyssey and the Iliad? A picture of a world where the moral code was based on honour, shame and heroism in battle. And Aristotle, a founder of Virtue Ethics, arguing that slavery was a morally justifiable thing!!! So the powerless, the slaves and the weak, were envious (not surprisingly) of the powerful and they channelled their feeling towards a new moral code based on protection of the weak, kindness, generosity and guilt at wrongdoing.....and what became of this....the "Christian" virtues of looking after the weak and the helpless...reinforced by the State (perhaps?)

There is plenty of slavery in the Bible and it endured for nearly 1900 years after the supposed death of JC so that is bobbins.

edit: answered question myself

Really - what is this evidence then

Don't ask me. I'm not a Christian.

See my previous post.

Choosing to believe does not necessarily mean you are stupid.

Assuming we have free will but thats a whole other kettle of coconuts

There is plenty of slavery in the Bible and it endured for nearly 1900 years after the supposed death of JC so that is bobbins.

TBH that whole post was utter bobbins not just the bit you identified.

[url= http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html ]All complete idiots[/url] and nowhere near as clued up as some of the posters on here.

“This sublime system is necessary to man.
It is the sacred tie that binds society,
The first foundation of holy equity,
The bridle to the wicked, the hope of the just.
If the heavens, stripped of his noble imprint,
Could ever cease to attest to his being,
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
Let the wise man announce him and kings fear him.”
"Voltaire"

And what these threads tend to degenerate into

[url=www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-IixtxKETU]Nag,Nag,Nag[/url]

What's your point caller?

God-Ontological reasons for...

No.2-The idea of God exists in the mind

God-Ontological reasons for...

What about them?

No.2-The idea of God exists in the mind

Not sure where else ideas can exist. Do you mean god only exists in the mind?

All complete idiots and nowhere near as clued up as some of the posters on here.

It's worth noting that religion was different in those days. It was what you did, in public at least.

[url= http://bible.cc/john/1-1.htm ]John 1:1[/url]
Originally written in Aramaic-[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos ]Logos[/url]
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous ]Nous[/url]
Lots lost in translation

Not sure where else ideas can exist. Do you mean god only exists in the mind?

The poetry of the Christmas gospel, well done Nick 1962.

Voltaire.. that well known idiot.

I don't know whats been lost in translation Nick but you've certainly lost me.

[img] [/img]

Is god an idea?
Who to believe Plato,Buddha ,St Augustine,Thomas Aquinas,Malebranche,Einstein...even Dawkins!
Greater minds than STW have given this a lot of thought.
I know where I'll be looking.
In the classifieds 🙂

How am I supposed to do that? I'm not one of them!

I am not aware of any evidence, no.

But yet again, let me re-iterate my point:

Choosing to believe does not necessarily mean you are stupid.

So you say there are those that disagree, well so what they don't have any evidence, which you admit is true. Yet you think that those that choose to believe are not stupid? Firstly, you are not making any sense, and secondly you are arguing with yourself as I don't claim they are exclusivly stupid, they could be deluded, mad or poorly educated/informed.

Your argument is based on the assumption that believing without evidence is stupid.

Without wishing to be abrasive or offensive, I'm just stating it as I see it, but yes you are finally getting it (although I would prefer to say one or some of stupid, mad, deluded, or poorly educated/informed).

How can believing without evidence be anything other than one of those?

SRSLY Toys, please stop.

Lifer, firstly molgrips raised the stupid word, I am just responding. We are having a discussion, this isn't just pointless point scoring, I'm interested in getting molgrips to either prove me wrong or me prove him wrong. That seems fine to me. If you don't like it don't read this thread.

How can believing without evidence be anything other than one of those?

I've been trying to explain that for half the thread.

Your argument is based on the assumption that believing without evidence is stupid.

if you use this as you basis for finding truth in the world inevitably you will end up with some stupid [ ill conceived, incorrect, false] views of reality

to believe things without evidence [ in this case you may even argue despite the evidence] is stupid creationism for example
In this respect it is stupid.

Good - lets have an answer then 'cos I am fascinated

Are you talking about the creation story or the existence of God?

if you use this as you basis for finding truth in the world inevitably you will end up with some stupid [ ill conceived, incorrect, false] views of reality

Those are all subjective terms!

Look, it's very simple. The existence of God is unprovable either way. So you can choose the option you WANT to believe in. The one you like.

yay thank you JY, finally someone else admits it.

I echo teej, come on molgrips lets have an answer, I haven't seen any evidence or discussion to prove that faith isn't down to one of my quatrain of causes. (I'll try and refrain from repeating them as it appears to be hurting some peoples feelings)

What's stupid to one person is perfectly reasonable to another.

MNolgrips the positions "there is a god" and "there is no god" are not equivalents.

One is a beleif without evidence, the other is an absence of belief in the seance of evidence the first is based on faith - the second on rational thought

The existence of God is [b]unprovable either way[/b]

Ok I take issue with this, and have done since the beginning, you cannot claim something exists purely because you cannot disprove it. Otherwise you could postulate any thing you like and becasue there is no contrary evidence then its ok to believe in it, then we get flying teapots/spagghetiimonsters/unicorns and any other fairy story crap that the human imagination cares to dream up.
in molgrips world:
Lord of the rings? True, I cant prove it isn't true so it's ok to believe it is.
Home and Away? All true.
Peppa Pig? True.
You can only claim something exists if you can find evidence to prove it exists.

Is there a hole in my argument you would care to point out?

The existence of God is unprovable either way.

Theoretically, the existence of god is provable, we just haven't worked out how yet. It's the non-existence that's unprovable.

You can only claim something exists if you can find evidence to prove it exists.

Is there a hole in my argument you would care to point out?

You can claim that you believe something exists, or suspect that it does. Generally though, there's at least some sort of reason for thinking this.

Science does this all the time; there's no proof that the Higgs Boson exists, but there are other factors which suggest that it might do, so some very clever people are looking [i]really hard [/i]to see if they can find it. The difference is, even though there's not yet a shred of proof, there's good reason to suspect that it might be there, so it's not unreasonable a theory.

This is where organised religions falls down, for me; it's not that there's no proof of god which is the sticking point for me, it's that there's little reason to think that any of the religions might be on the right track because ultimately it's all based on stuff we made up back in a time when we thought the Earth was flat and stars were points of light in a sky dome.

They are equivalents.

In both cases, adherents are looking at what they've been told and read, and choosing an option that sits well with their mindset.

It's a bit of a different argument, but how many of you really know jack sh*t about the big bang? Really? Or are you just going by what you read in a book?

Ok I take issue with this, and have done since the beginning, you cannot claim soemthing exists purely becasue you cannot disprove it

Flippin 'eck. I'm not claiming something exists, for a start.

Those who do claim he exists - I don't think they are using that argument. If they are then they could legitimately be accused of being stupid in that respect 🙂

in molgrips world:

Jesus. You are being dense now, you have no idea of my point at all. And you are arguing terribly.

"Evidentialism should be rejected on the grounds that it is false by its own standards, since evidentialism is not itself evidenced, it is inherently paradoxical to hold this view."

Discuss-might be a bit beyond you Toys19 😉

Theoretically, the existence of god is provable, we just haven't worked out how yet. It's the non-existence that's unprovable.

Nearly all of the things that were once claimed to be due to god have been proven to be real or natural, so the relious have to turn to the extremes of our knowledge and claim that is god, becasue they know damn well the physicist havent got a decent explaination yet, so its easy to make them look a bit confused (because they are).

Alright smartarse. Why is any of this here? Why does the universe exist? Give me a scientific answer to that if you're so keen on science.

It's not really an extreme of knowledge, is it? It's THE BIG QUESTION. As far as I can tell it's pretty much un-answerable from the point of view of science. Science seeks to explain cause and effect, why things happen in the universe. Why that universe exists in the first place is well outside its remit.

To re-iterate, I am not religious or spiritualist or any of it, I am a scientist and an atheist.

Molgrips you just said

Flippin 'eck. I'm not claiming something exists, for a start.

Those who do claim he exists - I don't think they are using that argument. If they are then they could legitimately be accused of being stupid in that respect

Look, it's very simple. The existence of God is unprovable either way. So you can choose the option you WANT to believe in. The one you like.

so are you using the argument of existence due to unprovability or not, because you do seem to be contradicting yourself (and do try not to "be offensive" as you just called me dense, I don't mind I am a bit dense, but others don't like it, and to be honest I am surprised at you as so far you haven't been even mildly abrasive, which is why I have refrianed from hassling you about it..)

Ooh and you called me smartarse, I like that one!

Why is any of this here? Why does the universe exist? Give me a scientific answer to that if you're so keen on science.

1) This proves my point that religious apoligist always go toth the edge of knowledge to try and discredit atheists. But I can see that really this what god is all about so my point is a bit lame.
2) Have you considered that there is no reason why we are here? It just is? Does there have to be a reason.
3) I find that I cannot accept the reason as god. If the reason was god, how did he get here? This is what lead to me to atheism in the first place, it started at primary school.

molgrips - Member

They are equivalents.

Why does the universe exist?

there is no "why" =- there only is "is"

Searching for a "why" is what leads people to religeon. understnding there is no "why" is teh rational position

Those are all subjective terms!

You dont even mean this drivel you ar espouting to defend

Look, it's very simple. The existence of God is unprovable either way. So you can choose the option you WANT to believe in. The one you like.

we all know you cannot prove a negative th eissue is now whether evidence less faith views based that run counter to the actual evidence is a wise or a foolish position.

this view , you espouse, can be used to defend any position as long as I make sure it is not true because, again, you cannot prove a negative.

If you dont think that is unwise then so be it but i dont think you actually believe this but i do believe you believe in tolerance of those who do

i think it is a "stupid" view point but i so not think that ll who do it are stupid.

I didn't call you dense, I said you were BEING dense. There's a difference. The first is a personal insult, the second is a critique of your argument. I do stupid things from time to time but I am overall not stupid. With reference to my earlier posts I am temporarily stupid whilst doing stupid things 🙂

I don't think I'm contradicting myself here. If something is unproveable then it's a moot point. It's not the same as asserting something due to the absence of evidence to the contrary.

The existence of God isn't just unknown, it's [b]unknowable[/b]

Many religious people are not seeking to PROVE the existence of God. They are happy to accept that which is not subject to concrete proof.

I quite liked the movie Troll Hunter. It is not possible to conclusively prove that it is a good movie.

TandemJeremy - Member

MNolgrips the positions "there is a god" and "there is no god" are not equivalents.

One is a beleif without evidence, the other is an absence of belief in the seance of evidence the first is based on faith - the second on rational thought

Well I don't know how rational it is to reach conclusions by holding seances 😕

It's a bit of a different argument, but how many of you really know jack sh*t about the big bang? Really? Or are you just going by what you read in a book?

This is an interesting point. The science-y amongst us 'know' science, but we really only know because other people have told us and we believe them. This is exactly the same thought model as theism.

However. The difference is that in the former case, other clever people are constantly trying to [i]disprove [/i]what we know, and the first clever people welcome and encourage this. The more they do this and fail, the more likely it is that what we're being told is correct. In the latter case, when you try to disprove elements of religion, people tend to get cross and shouty, or when really painted into a corner go "oh, well, we didn't really mean that, it's just an allegory."

You're absolutely right, I don't know first hand about a lot of this stuff. But I'm fairly confident about which group of people I'm more likely to believe. Fortunately, as I've said before, science and nature will go on working with or without my understanding. Which neatly answers the next question.

Why is any of this here? Why does the universe exist? Give me a scientific answer to that if you're so keen on science.

Is it not supremely arrogant to think, "if I don't understand this, it can't be right." I don't know why the universe exists, I might never know. There might not be a reason. To some people, this is unacceptable, so god must've done it.

i think it is a "stupid" view point but i so not think that ll who do it are stupid

Bang on.

I don't know why the universe exists, I might never know. There might not be a reason. To some people, this is unacceptable, so god must've done it

We MIGHT never know? I do not think there even is an answer, in scientific terms. I don't mean what caused it, I mean why is there even a framework for that cause to operate? When the universe is EVERYTHING, how can there be anything outside of it? By definition, there isn't. And yet, we believe it was created at some point so again logically there must be something outside it. It's a paradox, isn't it? And by 'paradox' I don't mean a difficult question, I mean its two mutually conflicting ideas that both seem true.

The idea that God exists is a great way to resolve this.

I've got more for you - how do you know we aren't all in the petri dish of some scientist or other? This could all be the frickin' Matrix, and you'd never ever ever know. It would not even be possible to know.

However. The difference is that in the former case, other clever people are constantly trying to disprove what we know, and the first clever people welcome and encourage this. The more they do this and fail, the more likely it is that what we're being told is correct. In the latter case, when you try to disprove elements of religion, people tend to get cross and shouty, or when really painted into a corner go "oh, well, we didn't really mean that, it's just an allegory."

Ummmm exactly.

molgrips - Member

i think it is a "stupid" view point but i so not think that ll who do it are stupid

Bang on.

You lot are just splitting hairs about how I said stupid, WGAS if it is stupid or they are stupid, now we have all said it. I am happy for you to correct me that people of faith have a stupid viewpoint, fine they are not stupid per se they just have a stupid view point.

(I think it means the same thing, it's just semantics designed to insult stupid people whilst making them think they havent been insulted, but I'll go with it.)

The existence of God isn't just unknown, it's unknowable

Why do you say that? Of course it's knowable, he could pop up tomorrow in Trafalgar Square and yell "Psych! Oh my Me, that was a laugh. Now, who's up for a bit of Rapturing then?" It's just very unlikely.

Many religious people are not seeking to PROVE the existence of God

I can think of a few goods reason for that.

1) There's a high chance that they'll not find him, and then they'd look silly.

2) If they did find him, given the number of competing religions in the world (and all the other possible concepts that no-one's thought of), odds are that their ideas turn out to be bunk.

3) If they did find him, they'd be out of a job. Why would you need a priest when you can just pop round to Chez God and have a chinwag with the Big Man himself over a nice cup of tea and a Hob Nob?

The existence of God isn't just unknown, it's unknowable