GOD: How much do you believe in him?

[Mr Burns]

Mr Burns, your logic in that long post doesn't really work. DG's point (which I don't agree with, but it's his view, he's entitled to it) is that young children are 'without sin' so get to go to heaven. Giving a baby an opportunity to grow up and commit (or not) sin is not an inherently bad thing, and I can't see anywhere in DG's posts that you've quoted where he suggests that it is.

I'm not saying there aren't holes in the argument (but as has been said several times in here, belief inherently isn't, or at least doesn't have to be, logical), just that I don't think you've highlighted one here. But then, I haven't seen all the posts so maybe he incriminated himself somewhere else.

The point of that post is from an earlier post, DerbyGull said African babies and children are "the lucky ones" to die of famine, so they can be closer to god, and reborn in another life. Those were his words, words that he has not once back down from. Words to me, that are evil.

He has said, anyone working against god, is doing the devils work. So therefore doctors who save babies lifes, are working against god, as god as called them to him, and its only modern science that is keeping them alive and stopping them from dying and going to god, so as god as called them, surely the doctors are working against god, and therefore performing the devils work, so that must make doctors evil.

Off course they will argue that its god that has allowed Doctors the skills to save babies, (even though if babies live in poor parts of the world they still die), and all a bit contridicary isn't it! But that's religions for you. All nice and happy, until someone challenges it and they can't answer, and then that person is either an unpleasant human being, or if enough challenge it, its gods will, and he must not be questioned.

 

[DerbyGull]

I 'retract' the comment that they are 'lucky'. On the basis that life is precious. I only meant it in the context, that being born in the part of the world they are born in seems quite hopeless to me. And if their government has forsaken them then what sort of life is that.

But if it makes you feel good to call me a tosser then go for it.

 

[El Presidente]

For me the key issue is one of proof, and this forms the basis for the disagreement.

Believers in God claim (rightly) that you cannot his prove his non-existence, and therefore he could exist.

Atheists and other non-believers claim that the onus of proof should be in terms of existence, rather than non-existence, in the same way that the burden of proof in a law case is on the prosecution to prove a defendant is guilty.

My personal position is that God (and therefore religion) was invented because our understanding has historically been very limited, and the existence of a Deity gave an answer to questions that knowledge at the time could not come up with a solution.

I think we have moved on since then though and modern physics and knowledge of the galaxy gives a reason for our existence.

 

[readingstockport]

You not an albion fan then?

I used to follow Stockport but after falling out spectacularly with some people up there and also the former club chairman at Stockport - and being threatened with a lible action by the current chairman after I called him a corrupt peer, his name is Lord Peter Snape if you want to google him - I tend to not really 'support' anyone at the moment. But for reasons lost in antiquity, like a drunken encounter with a young lad called Piers one day after a match and knowing Attila and Graham Dagless for decades, I have a soft spot for you lot.

 

[Mr Burns]

I 'retract' the comment that they are 'lucky'. On the basis that life is precious. I only meant it in the context, that being born in the part of the world they are born in seems quite hopeless to me. And if their government has forsaken them then what sort of life is that.

But if it makes you feel good to call me a tosser then go for it.

Sorry, are you taking to me. I thought I was on your ignore list? Obviosuly not. Another untruth spoken by a religious type maybe?

Glad to see you have finally retracted that comment. It's only taken a ban and a couple of weeks for you to do so.

Think before you type your vile comments next time.

Or in your case, think after you've read the bible, and then think again. Look at it from both sides. If you can manage to do it without the blinkers on, then you will find true enlightenment. But I fear in your case, you need to believe in religion, much much more than you want to, and I truely pity you.

If that makes me a disgusting human being (is that type of name calling not a banning offensive) then so be it. I'm more than happy with who I am, you with you need to beleivie in the bible at your age, clearly are not.

But then of course you won't read this, as you are ignoring me!

 

[Mr Burns]

For me the key issue is one of proof, and this forms the basis for the disagreement.

Believers in God claim (rightly) that you cannot his prove his non-existence, and therefore he could exist.

Atheists and other non-believers claim that the onus of proof should be in terms of existence, rather than non-existence, in the same way that the burden of proof in a law case is on the prosecution to prove a defendant is guilty.

My personal position is that God (and therefore religion) was invented because our understanding has historically been very limited, and the existence of a Deity gave an answer to questions that knowledge at the time could not come up with a solution.

I think we have moved on since then though and modern physics and knowledge of the galaxy gives a reason for our existence.

Occam's Razor, the basic scientific principle. And it says... all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. So what's more likely an all-powerful mysterious god created the universe and then decided not to give any proof of its existence, or that it simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created him so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone?

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

But for reasons lost in antiquity, like a drunken encounter with a young lad called Piers

I wonder what happened to him...maybe we should ask Uncle Buck?

 

[JonathanLivingstonSeagull]

hay!

for my tuppence worth i think that one's conception of God (primitive as it/we may be) should be considered via the philosophical/spiritual concept of knowledge (self and or otherwise) through direct experience

this means not being second hand people, never relying on information we have gleaned from anywhere except the source - our direct experience.

this includes adhering to scientific formula or religious dogma, or allowing yourself to be swayed by the opinion of a friend, however valued, or for example even staying closeted as a homosexual (as a waning contemporary premise) because you cannot see past societal or family disapproval, though your unheeded direct experience was telling you that you are attracted to people of the same sex.

so direct experience is whatever you REALLY think, based on what you have directly experienced! Received by yourself honestly and unfettered by 'alien' (others') disseminated ideas and whatnot. Sometimes it's hard to see the vast epic sweeping plain... for the trees.

my own opinion, i realise, by applying my direct experience... well it brings me to a kind of 'Bill Hicksian' god... that is... well don't let my discourse be your secondhand person maker and all that!!!

does this ring at all true with anyone?

 

[sten_super]

Occam's Razor, the basic scientific principle. And it says... all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. So what's more likely an all-powerful mysterious god created the universe and then decided not to give any proof of its existence, or that it simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created him so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone?

Blimey, you don't half load your comments.

Let me rephrase what you just put, in a slightly more (to me, at least) neutral way.

What is more simple,
i) the existence of an all-powerful (albeit generally non-visible) god
ii) the thousands (millions?) of low-chance events relating to the formation of a suitable solar system, a suitable planet, the development of carbon-based life on said planet, and the development of 'intelligent' life on the same planet, all occurring

It's not quite as clear-cut as you like to make out.

 

[readingstockport]

I wonder what happened to him...maybe we should ask Uncle Buck?

That's an idea. He may know what happened that day.

TBH I have nofucking idea what I did

 

[DerbyGull]

I used to follow Stockport but after falling out spectacularly with some people up there and also the former club chairman at Stockport - and being threatened with a lible action by the current chairman after I called him a corrupt peer, his name is Lord Peter Snape if you want to google him - I tend to not really 'support' anyone at the moment. But for reasons lost in antiquity, like a drunken encounter with a young lad called Piers one day after a match and knowing Attila and Graham Dagless for decades, I have a soft spot for you lot.

I've met quite a few that have adopted the Albion, good for you. Snape sounds like a creep.

 

[readingstockport]

Blimey, you don't half load your comments.

Let me rephrase what you just put, in a slightly more (to me, at least) neutral way.

What is more simple,
i) the existence of an all-powerful (albeit generally non-visible) god
ii) the thousands (millions?) of low-chance events relating to the formation of a suitable solar system, a suitable planet, the development of carbon-based life on said planet, and the development of 'intelligent' life on the same planet, all occurring

It's not quite as clear-cut as you like to make out.

Simple. 2 is the more likely. If not then you are once again faced with the question that no religious person ever likes to answer. If all things need a first cause and creator then who or what created god?

 

[JonathanLivingstonSeagull]

Blimey, you don't half load your comments.

Let me rephrase what you just put, in a slightly more (to me, at least) neutral way.

What is more simple,
i) the existence of an all-powerful (albeit generally non-visible) god
ii) the thousands (millions?) of low-chance events relating to the formation of a suitable solar system, a suitable planet, the development of carbon-based life on said planet, and the development of 'intelligent' life on the same planet, all occurring

It's not quite as clear-cut as you like to make out.

my previous post states my true opinion about all this but i had to answer here like a smartarse... (or a charlatan)

2) it's called the goldilocks principal. this planet, etc, is JUST RIIIGGHT!!

consciousness asks us to go looking for the needle in the haystack, but only may do so because we happen to already have found it / be on it / ARE living on the needle already...

sorry to mix metaphors but you get my drift

 

[LA1972]

I can not believe that ONLY 40% of Brighton fans think that - 'god does NOT exist, FACT'. That is mental - get a grip people!!

 

[sten_super]

Simple. 2 is the more likely. If not then you are once again faced with the question that no religious person ever likes to answer. If all things need a first cause and creator then who or what created god?

To put it in perspective - from a quick google I have found Is there anybody out there? - University of East Anglia (UEA) which suggests that the odds of intelligent life on an Earth-like planet developing may be of the order of 0.01% over a 4-billion year period.

My point is not to answer the question necessarily. It's just that the ridiculously partisan nature of the discussion doesn't help in trying to develop coherent and sensible discussion, IMHO. It's just preaching to the converted (if you'll excuse the pun).

 

[JonathanLivingstonSeagull]

it's a good job that to the best of our understanding the universe is infinite in both time and space then.

tangent alert: call me a hippy burn-out but i think the phenomenon of consciousness itself is the 'solution' to the problem of infinity, by the way. in it's uniqueness, it asks the question that without it (consciousness) wouldn't be asked. if there were no consciousness and lets presume the planet existed without it, it would just be an animal cycle of action based on instinct with no property of reflection and self-awareness. in that sense, would it even exist? it is the tree falling in a forest question.

soooo.... you know how we can't quite imagine infinity? how we have no comprehension of it, really? because it is beyond vastness? when i try and think of space infinity as a concept i come up to a sealing wall! what is beyond it then, in my mind? well maybe terry pratchett's turtles and elephants... it's as good an answer as any other! but it is the conscious mind that asked that question - how is infinity? what is the wall that may exist to seal it all in, the one that doesn't exist?

it's consciousnesses only real (probably) confusion. what/how is infinity? cannot compute. wall. must be something inside wall, but also outside... argh more infinity, cannot compute...

and so the mind that asks a question in a moment of esoteric (for that is consciousnesses nature) speculation and self-reflection reaches an impasse that nothing but itself can resolve. it cannot resolve it and i'd give the final answer as though it were a remainder - at the edge of infinity there is a wall. there is inside and outside that wall. here is the remainder - the in-group and out-group schematic drives the nature and history of man and woman. you can apply to most things you like.

'with, without... and who'll deny, it's what the fighting's all about?'

hippy burnout report end

 

[seagullmouse]

To put it in perspective - from a quick google I have found Is there anybody out there? - University of East Anglia (UEA) which suggests that the odds of intelligent life on an Earth-like planet developing may be of the order of 0.01% over a 4-billion year period.

My point is not to answer the question necessarily. It's just that the ridiculously partisan nature of the discussion doesn't help in trying to develop coherent and sensible discussion, IMHO. It's just preaching to the converted (if you'll excuse the pun).

The fact that we are here needn't be considered fortunate/unlikely.

Lottery example
If you said before the event that person X was definitely going to win the lottery then the odds are massively stacked against you, millions to 1.
But there has to be a winner somewhere, after the lottery has been drawn, then the odds are 1(100%) that there will be a winner.

Life example
If you said before the event that species X was definitely going to emerge on planet Z then the odds are massively stacked against you, trillions to 1.
The fact that we are here and able to ask the question "why are we here?" means that we were the winner (as in the lottery example above).
There could be infinite universes/galaxies/solar systems/planets out there so its not unlikely, we are just the ones who made it

Not put that across very articulately but hope you get the point!

 

[beorhthelm]

And then theres DerbyGull. He can believe what he wants, but the reason so many are mocking him, is his views are coming over like a 80 year old bible bashing preacher, who seems to take the bible word for word, yet he opening admits he hasn't finish the bible yet. He's one of these incredibily weak minded individulas that extremists love to find. And another reason DerbyGull is mocked, now by an increasing number, is not just because of his views, it because when he says something that contradicts what he has said before, it ignores people and refuses to discuss it, waits, then joins in the following day hoping people will forget.

He is either a weak minded person, who really needs to be careful he's not picked up by extemists, or someone on the mother of all wind ups, in which case I take my hat of to him.... (if I was waring a hat!)

i mock him because he doesnt even understand the basic premises and tenets of the religion he believes in. rather than reading the bible to try and find more contradictions and allegory dressed as truth, he really should pack it in.

actually, i will generally mock the religious on the basis they dont have an answer to the problem of evil, which rather renders their whole believe system either cruel or ignorant. we can prove that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist and the bible is not a accurate historic document, even theologians, bishops and such acknowledge this, so anyone who claims it is anything other than a story book is deserving of ridicule.

 

[El Presidente]

Blimey, you don't half load your comments.

Let me rephrase what you just put, in a slightly more (to me, at least) neutral way.

What is more simple,
i) the existence of an all-powerful (albeit generally non-visible) god
ii) the thousands (millions?) of low-chance events relating to the formation of a suitable solar system, a suitable planet, the development of carbon-based life on said planet, and the development of 'intelligent' life on the same planet, all occurring

It's not quite as clear-cut as you like to make out.

It's surely similar to the chances of winning a lottery. Given that there are 200-400 billion stars in the Milky Way alone, whilst life is not probable in an individual solar system, it is probable given the number of opportunities that exist within the universe.

 

[magoo]

To put it in perspective - from a quick google I have found Is there anybody out there? - University of East Anglia (UEA) which suggests that the odds of intelligent life on an Earth-like planet developing may be of the order of 0.01% over a 4-billion year period.

My point is not to answer the question necessarily. It's just that the ridiculously partisan nature of the discussion doesn't help in trying to develop coherent and sensible discussion, IMHO. It's just preaching to the converted (if you'll excuse the pun).

That's still much more probable than there being a God.