An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips

[Glaswegian]

Clodhopper;1320739 wrote: Think you've gone too far here mate.
I don't think I have done that at all, Clodhopper. In fact, I think that for far too long now non-believers have been duped into showing religion, its associated beliefs and those who hold them a respect which they in no way deserve.

I'll say more about this later in the thread.

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1320784 wrote: Seems like we are back to being punished for the sins of our fathers.
Are you referring to 'original sin'?

[Clodhopper]

I don't think I have done that at all, Clodhopper. In fact, I think that for far too long now non-believers have been duped into showing religion, its associated beliefs and those who hold them a respect which they in no way deserve.

I'll say more about this later in the thread.


Then I shall wait for you to do so. In the meantime I note that you operate from a very moral position, and (in the friendliest way possible) caution you against rolling-eyed fanaticism. :-3

(In an area that after all, is not subject to logical proof)

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1320784 wrote: Maybe YOU are helping kill all those children and will pay for it.
Maybe I'm not and maybe I won't.

Do you believe that your loving and merciful God has created a hell or place of damnation into which 'mortal sinners' are cast for all eternity?

[Glaswegian]

Clodhopper;1320794 wrote: In the meantime I note that you operate from a very moral position, and (in the friendliest way possible) caution you against rolling-eyed fanaticism. :-3
Sound advice. Thank you.

[LarsMac]

I don't buy into this whole "God is punishing the sinners for ,..." routine.

Simply put, as Lon said, S--t happens. humans go on about their business on a planet that has a lot of activity that is not centered around humans, and we get in the way, like an ant colony gets in the way of the roto-tiller.

It just happens.

And then, of course, we humans are not the brightest critters in the universe, either, now, are we?

We are constantly doing stuff to ourselves and to each other that in retrospect, proved to be bad ideas.

So, the so-called Christians who tried to blame the deaths in Haiti (or anywhere else, for that matter) on our collective disobedience are talking outa their backsides.

God didn't do it.

God, is looking on and tries to tell us that he has a better idea, if we would just stop and listen for a moment, but to have a truly intelligent conversation with the lot of us is like trying to explain peaceful coexistence to a herd of 3-year-olds who missed a meal AND a nap.

The whole story of the bible, in a nutshell, is how God kept stepping down here to pull our butts out of the S--t, and how quickly we forget and go on with our own self-destructive behavior.

[Glaswegian]

LarsMac;1320802 wrote: I don't buy into this whole "God is punishing the sinners for ,..." routine.

Simply put, as Lon said, S--t happens. humans go on about their business on a planet that has a lot of activity that is not centered around humans, and we get in the way, like an ant colony gets in the way of the roto-tiller.

It just happens.
Given your belief in God, Lars, I take it that you also believe He created the Earth. This means that all the physical processes which occur on this planet - from those occurring at its core to those occurring in its outermost atmosphere - are the work of God. Therefore, when God created these physical processes He must have known in advance - given His omniscience - that some of them would cause earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes and other such phenomena which wreak death and destruction on the human race.

So how can you say that sh*t like earthquakes just happen which we get in the way of? According to your belief system, earthquakes and the like do not just happen. They have been made to happen by God who, as their originator, is responsible for them.

An omnipotent God could very easily have created the Earth in such a way that earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes and so on did not occur on it, thereby precluding the death and suffering of countless millions of human beings. Yet He chose not to do this. That is not evidence of a loving and merciful God, is it?

[Glaswegian]

Clodhopper wrote: Think you've gone too far here mate.


Glaswegian wrote: I don’t think I have done that all, Clodhopper. In fact, I think that for far too long now non-believers have been duped into showing religion, its associated beliefs and those who hold them a respect which they in no way deserve.

I’ll say more about this later in the thread.


Regarding religious beliefs:

Let me ask you something, Clodhopper. Why is it that we only hear religionists clamouring that everyone must respect their religious beliefs or else they will take offence? Why do we never hear, for example, physicists bleating:

‘How dare you criticise my belief in the Second Law of Thermodynamics! You must respect this belief or I will be offended.’

Or mathematicians bleating:

‘How dare you criticise my belief in Pythagoras’ Theorem! You must respect this belief or I will be offended.’

Or astronomers bleating:

How dare you criticise my belief in Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion! You must respect this belief or I will be offended.

The reason why we never hear this kind of bleating, Clodhopper, is because physicists, mathematicians, astronomers and all those involved in other areas of rational enquiry are not afraid to subject the beliefs associated with their respective disciplines to the most rigorous intellectual scrutiny and critique. In fact, they demand that these beliefs are treated in this way.

But this is far from being the case with religious beliefs. Many religionists brook no criticism of their beliefs whatsoever and demand that these beliefs are granted special immunity from criticism - even up to the point of being mollycoddled and protected by law. This demand ought to make us suspicious. We should ask ourselves: Why must these beliefs be protected in this way? What makes them so vulnerable to critical scrutiny and challenge? Are they inherently weak? Are they lacking in evidence? Do they have any basis in reality? Is it because they have no such basis that religionists get upset when these beliefs are criticised? Does criticism of their religious beliefs threaten to reveal this painful fact to religionists?

What do you think, Clodhopper?

[Clodhopper]

Ooof! I'm away on hol tomorrow, I've just finished packing and organising and am tired.

But at first glance, I'd say that the scientific examples you've given are all subject to empirical proof. It is not, for those able to understand the maths, a matter of belief but of fact.

The existence of God is not empirically provable or disprovable and many people claim to have had subjective experience of God. Since the non-existence of God cannot be proved, the possiblity of God (imo) must be acknowledged. Einstein commented that God does not play dice with the Universe, which suggests he believed in God, as many scientists do. Doesn't stop them being good scientists.

Also, the status of religion in society is not set in stone and does change over time. 300 years ago you might well have been burned for what you've written. Nowadays? Just an argument.

[Glaswegian]

Clodhopper;1320995 wrote: Ooof! I'm away on hol tomorrow, I've just finished packing and organising and am tired.

But at first glance, I'd say that the scientific examples you've given are all subject to empirical proof. It is not, for those able to understand the maths, a matter of belief but of fact.

The existence of God is not empirically provable or disprovable and many people claim to have had subjective experience of God. Since the non-existence of God cannot be proved, the possiblity of God (imo) must be acknowledged. Einstein commented that God does not play dice with the Universe, which suggests he believed in God, as many scientists do. Doesn't stop them being good scientists.

Also, the status of religion in society is not set in stone and does change over time. 300 years ago you might well have been burned for what you've written. Nowadays? Just an argument.
Interesting post.

bon voyage

[LarsMac]

Glaswegian;1320823 wrote: Given your belief in God, Lars, I take it that you also believe He created the Earth. This means that all the physical processes which occur on this planet - from those occurring at its core to those occurring in its outermost atmosphere - are the work of God. Therefore, when God created these physical processes He must have known in advance - given His omniscience - that some of them would cause earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes and other such phenomena which wreak death and destruction on the human race.

So how can you say that sh*t like earthquakes just happen which we get in the way of? According to your belief system, earthquakes and the like do not just happen. They have been made to happen by God who, as their originator, is responsible for them.

An omnipotent God could very easily have created the Earth in such a way that earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes and so on did not occur on it, thereby precluding the death and suffering of countless millions of human beings. Yet He chose not to do this. That is not evidence of a loving and merciful God, is it?


So, what? you figure he is just sitting there watching all this and saying, Hum, them Haitians are getting a bit lackadaisical, down there. I think I'll just shake things up around there and get their attention.

???

You're not much better that the old rev Pat.

God set it all in motion, and let 'er rip.

We are just part of the food chain, but he sees we got promise. We can actually perceive the idea of Him, and some can even listen when he speaks.

But, sure, he could have made a nice pretty little place where we could all live in happiness, and never have to deal with strife or danger. but what would be the point of that?

We would just be happy fat slugs living off the dew on the leaves.

Whup. Sorry, that job is taken. He expects a little more out of you that that, son.

[Glaswegian]

LarsMac;1321017 wrote: So, what? you figure he is just sitting there watching all this and saying, Hum, them Haitians are getting a bit lackadaisical, down there. I think I'll just shake things up around there and get their attention.

???
No. I figure God is just sitting there watching all this death and suffering caused by earthquakes and the like, and doing nothing. And I am asking why? After all, He is the originator of these catastrophic phenomena and, as such, responsible for them. You yourself have admitted as much. Viz.



Larsmac wrote: God set it all in motion, and let 'er rip.


~o0o~


LarsMac wrote: But, sure, he could have made a nice pretty little place where we could all live in happiness, and never have to deal with strife or danger. but what would be the point of that?

We would just be happy fat slugs living off the dew on the leaves.
According to your belief system, God has already made such a place. It’s called ‘Heaven’ - where believers like you will supposedly ‘live in happiness, and never have to deal with strife or danger‘. So what is the point of that place? Is it to turn you into a happy fat slug - as your argument suggests?

[hoppy]

Glaswegian;1321028 wrote: No. I figure God is just sitting there watching all this death and suffering caused by earthquakes and the like, and doing nothing. And I am asking why? After all, He is the originator of these catastrophic phenomena and, as such, responsible for them. You yourself have admitted as much. Viz.





~o0o~


According to your belief system, God has already made such a place. It’s called ‘Heaven’ - where believers like you will supposedly ‘live in happiness, and never have to deal with strife or danger‘. So what is the point of that place? Is it to turn you into a happy fat slug - as your argument suggests?


Your preoccupation with the subject tells me you are constantly searching for assurance. That you are insecure in your beliefs. That you are scared. Seeking comfort in numbers, even. A pitiful person.

[Glaswegian]

Clodhopper;1320995 wrote: But at first glance, I'd say that the scientific examples you've given are all subject to empirical proof.
Yes. I’d say so as well.

Clodhopper wrote: It is not, for those able to understand the maths, a matter of belief but of fact.
I was using the word ‘belief’ very loosely earlier when I said:

Glaswegian wrote:

Why do we never hear, for example, physicists bleating:

‘How dare you criticise my belief in the Second Law of Thermodynamics! You must respect this belief or I will be offended.’

Or mathematicians bleating:

‘How dare you criticise my belief in Pythagoras’ Theorem! You must respect this belief or I will be offended.’

Or astronomers bleating:

How dare you criticise my belief in Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion! You must respect this belief or I will be offended.
Here ‘belief’ should be understood along the lines of: ‘I believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has explanatory power: or I believe it is supported by a strong body of evidence.’

Clodhopper wrote: The existence of God is not empirically provable or disprovable and many people claim to have had subjective experience of God.
Many people also claim to have had subjective experience of angels, demons, djinn, talking to the dead, and of being abducted by aliens. But I don’t think these claims correspond to anything in reality. In my view, the evidence for them is utterly dubious. And this applies also to 'subjective experience of God'.

Clodhopper wrote: Since the non-existence of God cannot be proved, the possiblity of God (imo) must be acknowledged.
I agree. But the non-existence of Thor cannot be proved either. And nor can that of the all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent God, Clattysparrabaws. Apparently, this God is composed almost entirely of putrid toe fungus, and orbits the Andromeda Galaxy on the back of a dead pelican within whose maggot-ridden throat pouch He stores used condoms plucked from the interstellar void. Are you prepared to acknowledge the possible existence of these two Gods as well, Clodhopper?

Clodhopper wrote: Einstein commented that God does not play dice with the Universe, which suggests he believed in God, as many scientists do.
When Einstein said that ‘God does not play dice with the Universe’ he was speaking metaphorically. Einstein did not believe in ‘God’ at all as the following quote makes clear:

‘It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.’

[LarsMac]

Glaswegian;1321028 wrote: No. I figure God is just sitting there watching all this death and suffering caused by earthquakes and the like, and doing nothing. And I am asking why? After all, He is the originator of these catastrophic phenomena and, as such, responsible for them. You yourself have admitted as much. Viz.





~o0o~


According to your belief system, God has already made such a place. It’s called ‘Heaven’ - where believers like you will supposedly ‘live in happiness, and never have to deal with strife or danger‘. So what is the point of that place? Is it to turn you into a happy fat slug - as your argument suggests?


You presume much about my "belief system"

this sounds more like YOUR belief system.

God is watching YOU to see how long you are going to whine and snivel about all the bad stuff that happens to other people, instead of doing something to ease their burden.

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1321034 wrote: Your preoccupation with the subject tells me you are constantly searching for assurance. That you are insecure in your beliefs. That you are scared. Seeking comfort in numbers, even. A pitiful person.
Well, hoppy. When I look at the horror and suffering which destroys and devastates the lives of many millions of human beings in this world I cannot help wondering about it. And because this horror and suffering is relentless I find myself wondering about it often. For me it is a problem deserving of attention.

But for you it isn’t a problem at all. As far as you are concerned, the people I just referred to are getting what they deserve.

Do you want to answer any of the questions I put to you earlier in the thread? For example, this one:

Glaswegian wrote: Do you believe that your loving and merciful God has created a hell or place of damnation into which 'mortal sinners' are cast for all eternity?

[Glaswegian]

LarsMac;1321068 wrote: God is watching YOU to see how long you are going to whine and snivel about all the bad stuff that happens to other people, instead of doing something to ease their burden.
How do you know this? Did God tell you this personally?

[Glaswegian]

Larsmac wrote: We are just part of the food chain, but he sees we got promise.


If I understand you correctly, Lars, what you are saying here is this:

In spite of our animal nature God recognises that we have potential, that there is something about us which - if given time to develop - could allow us to rise above our animality.

And I suppose that every man, woman and child would have this potential - that they would be in possession of it in virtue of the fact of being human.

In that case, could you explain something to me? As you are no doubt aware, many millions of people were killed during the Second World War, often in very gruesome ways. Among the most gruesome deaths were those experienced by children - especially during the Holocaust. Let me give you a couple of examples of what I mean:

1.


‘In the fall of 1941 an SS detachment appeared in one of the villages and arrested all the Jews. They were arrayed in front of a ditch by the road and told to undress. Then the leader of the SS group declared that the Jews had released the war and that the assembled people had to pay for that. After this speech the grown-ups were shot and the children slain with rifle butts. The bodies were covered with gasoline and set on fire. Children who were still alive were tossed into the flames.’

2.


The following is a transcript of testimony given at the Nuremberg trials by a female survivor of Auschwitz:

Witness: ‘At that time when the great number of Jews were exterminated in the gas chambers, an order was issued that the children were to be thrown into the crematory ovens or the crematory ditches without previous asphyxiation with gas.’

Prosecutor: ‘How should we understand that? Were they thrown into the ovens alive or were they killed by other means before they were burned?’

Witness: ‘The children were thrown in alive. Their cries could be heard all over the camp.’

~o0o~


Given your belief in God, Lars, let me ask you this: How could an all-powerful and loving God witness Jewish children die such horrific deaths and do absolutely nothing to stop them? I mean, didn’t every one of those children have potential? The Jews, as you know, are an extremely talented people. Their contribution to Art, Science and Culture has been outstanding over the centuries. An omniscient God would have known that quite a number of those children would have gone on to accomplish great things had they lived. So why did He let them die - and not only that - die in such a hellish way?

What I find even more bewildering, Lars, is that the Jewish children I’ve been discussing were members of God’s ‘chosen people’. Didn’t God come to the aid of the ancestors of these children at the time of Moses when they cried out to Him in the wilderness? This ’loving and merciful’ God has supposedly intervened to save His people in the past. Yet He ignored the cries of thousands of Jewish children as they burned alive in the Holocaust. Why?

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1320639 wrote: God works in mysterious ways.
This is the classic religious cop out.

When the religionist’s belief system starts to look decidedly weak, when it threatens to unravel before his eyes, when it is in danger of collapsing under a mountain of contradictory evidence - what does the religionist do?

He adopts the most pious air he can and then drivels: ‘Ah, but it is a mystery.’

Freud was right - ‘Where questions of religion are concerned, people are guilty of every possible sort of dishonesty and intellectual misdemeanour.’

[LarsMac]

I am sure you find it so, Glaswegian.

However, I have no answer for you that will satisfy you. Like you, I am just another human.

When praying to find a suitible answer, this word came to me,

"You already know the answers to your questions, yet you continue to struggle. Seek first the Kingdom, and all else will be revealed to you."

I, personally have no more to say on the subject. You know from whom to seek the answers.

May God bless you.

[Glaswegian]

LarsMac;1321563 wrote: I am sure you find it so, Glaswegian.

However, I have no answer for you that will satisfy you. Like you, I am just another human.
Just another human? Unlike you and countless other religionists, I don't claim to be in direct communication with the Creator of the Universe. I do not share that conceit.

Why not use your human brain to seek an answer to the problem of evil and suffering in this world, Lars? Why not do that instead of cravenly clinging to religion because it functions as a pacifier for you in the face of this problem and others?

LarsMac;1321563 wrote: When praying to find a suitible answer, this word came to me,

"You already know the answers to your questions, yet you continue to struggle. Seek first the Kingdom, and all else will be revealed to you."
You say that these words came to you when you prayed - the implication being, of course, that they came to you from ’God’. I would say not. I would say that these words came to you by way of yourself, Lars. Specifically, they are nothing more than mystical piffle dredged up from a morass of religious claptrap which permeates your being. Praying to find an answer - as you have done - to the problem of evil and suffering in this world is the intellectual equivalent of attempting to glean an answer to this problem from the sensations produced in you by your bowel movements.

LarsMac;1321563 wrote: You know from whom to seek the answers.
Yes. From myself and other human beings who rely on their intellect to provide them with answers - and not on nonsensical religions born of infantile emotions and needs.

LarsMac;1321563 wrote: May God bless you.
This is what the religionist usually says when he runs out of arguments with which to defend his religion. The words ‘May God bless you’ tend to be accompanied by the most benign smile the religionist can muster. However, whenever I hear those words I know to immediately put on my bullet-proof vest.

[LarsMac]

I don't know about religionists, whatever those may be, but I do know many who call themselves Christians, who work very hard at easing the suffering of the less fortunate people on the planet.

I even know Muslims who are doing the same thing, as well as Jews and Hindus and even Atheists. They are all busy working to better lives and ease suffering, rather than whining and complaining about it all the time.

Prayer and meditation are useful, and have little to do with "mystical piffle".

And that word, whether it came from me, or it came from some mystical source, is still a good word.

You KNOW the answer, Brother.

I don't have to pray to find the answer to suffering and evil. That I know.

Only the selfish and greedy are to blame for the suffering of the world, and they walk in the halls of every establishment in the world, not just the churches and temples and Synagogues.

Christ is no pacifier, mate. Christ is a call to action.

And, BTW, I have no religion to defend. I simply follow my God.

[Glaswegian]

LarsMac;1321615 wrote: I don't know about religionists, whatever those may be, but I do know many who call themselves Christians, who work very hard at easing the suffering of the less fortunate people on the planet.

I even know Muslims who are doing the same thing, as well as Jews and Hindus and even Atheists. They are all busy working to better lives and ease suffering, rather than whining and complaining about it all the time.
It’s nice and sweet to talk about the Christians, Muslims and Jews who work very hard at easing the suffering of the less fortunate people on the planet. But things are not so nice and sweet when we look at what motivates many of these believers to do this. You will find that their altruistic behaviour is not so much motivated by the suffering itself which they witness in others as by the desire to curry favour with ‘God’ and win themselves a ticket into ‘Heaven’. To the extent that this ulterior motive holds sway in believers, it renders their altruism morally dubious. This is also the case with the Hindu insofar as his altruism is motivated by the desire for a ’good rebirth’.

The suffering of the less fortunate people on this planet should be alleviated for its own sake. That is all the motivation one should require.

LarsMac;1321615 wrote: Prayer and meditation are useful, and have little to do with "mystical piffle".
I see that you have brought in ‘meditation’ here. You have done this for a devious reason: namely, in order to confuse a useful activity with a useless one (‘prayer’). Shame on you!

LarsMac;1321615 wrote: You KNOW the answer, Brother.
The answer to what, Lars?

LarsMac;1321615 wrote: I don't have to pray to find the answer to suffering and evil. That I know.
But you said earlier that this is precisely what you did - you prayed for an answer. Viz.

LarsMac wrote: When praying to find a suitible answer


~o0o~


LarsMac;1321615 wrote: Christ is no pacifier, mate. Christ is a call to action.
If Christ is no pacifier then what is the following about?

Jesus loves me! This I know,

For the Bible tells me so;

Little ones to Him belong;

They are weak, but He is strong.



Yes, Jesus loves me!

Yes, Jesus loves me!

Yes, Jesus loves me!

The Bible tells me so.

Jesus loves me! This I know,

As He loved so long ago,

Taking children on His knee,

Saying, “Let them come to Me.”

Jesus loves me still today,

Walking with me on my way,

Wanting as a friend to give

Light and love to all who live.

Jesus loves me! He who died

Heaven’s gate to open wide;

He will wash away my sin,

Let His little child come in.

Jesus loves me! He will stay

Close beside me all the way;

Thou hast bled and died for me,

I will henceforth live for Thee.

LarsMac;1321615 wrote: And, BTW, I have no religion to defend. I simply follow my God.
Really? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is a divine being who hears and answers prayers?

[Clodhopper]

Have to say you get "Ranter of the Month" imo.

Why does it matter so much what others do or don't want to believe? You won't change the fanatics and you could hurt those for whom their faith is a support? Why?

It very much looks as though its in support of an orthodoxy as rigid and extreme as a Jesuit's.

(I'll go back and deal with your points if you like....)

[Glaswegian]

Clodhopper;1321986 wrote: (I'll go back and deal with your points if you like....)
Please do.

[Clodhopper]

Originally Posted by Clodhopper

But at first glance, I'd say that the scientific examples you've given are all subject to empirical proof.Yes. I’d say so as well.

Nothing much to add to this.

Originally Posted by Clodhopper

It is not, for those able to understand the maths, a matter of belief but of fact.I was using the word ‘belief’ very loosely earlier when I said:



Originally Posted by Glaswegian

Why do we never hear, for example, physicists bleating:

‘How dare you criticise my belief in the Second Law of Thermodynamics! You must respect this belief or I will be offended.’

Or mathematicians bleating:

‘How dare you criticise my belief in Pythagoras’ Theorem! You must respect this belief or I will be offended.’

Or astronomers bleating:

How dare you criticise my belief in Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion! You must respect this belief or I will be offended.

Here ‘belief’ should be understood along the lines of: ‘I believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has explanatory power: or I believe it is supported by a strong body of evidence.’



You are comparing chalk and cheese and blaming one for being worse at writing on a blackboard than the other.

Originally Posted by Clodhopper

The existence of God is not empirically provable or disprovable and many people claim to have had subjective experience of God.Many people also claim to have had subjective experience of angels, demons, djinn, talking to the dead, and of being abducted by aliens. But I don’t think these claims correspond to anything in reality. In my view, the evidence for them is utterly dubious. And this applies also to 'subjective experience of God'.

Yes. I know you think the evidence for these things is "dubious". Can you provide me with empirical proof of Love, and show me that Love exists? I should warn you that I have no experience of this so-called emotion and without proof will not accept that Love exists: all you folk claiming to have experience of it are just wrong.

Originally Posted by Clodhopper

Since the non-existence of God cannot be proved, the possiblity of God (imo) must be acknowledged.I agree. But the non-existence of Thor cannot be proved either. And nor can that of the all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent God, Clattysparrabaws. Apparently, this God is composed almost entirely of putrid toe fungus, and orbits the Andromeda Galaxy on the back of a dead pelican within whose maggot-ridden throat pouch He stores used condoms plucked from the interstellar void. Are you prepared to acknowledge the possible existence of these two Gods as well, Clodhopper?

In a Universe of infinite possibility, all things are possible. Therefore I believe in the possibility of the supreme being Clattywhoosis and co! Do you accept that that the Universe has infinite possibility? If you do, then do you accept the possibility of God?



Originally Posted by Clodhopper

Einstein commented that God does not play dice with the Universe, which suggests he believed in God, as many scientists do.When Einstein said that ‘God does not play dice with the Universe’ he was speaking metaphorically. Einstein did not believe in ‘God’ at all as the following quote makes clear: 'It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.’

Thanks for the useful quotation. I still say many scientists believe in God and are not worse scientists for that belief.

Now, why are you such a fanatic atheist? Belief or unbelief is your business, but you are out preaching with all the blazing fervour of mullah preaching Holy War or a Pope proclaiming a Crusade!

[Ahso!]

I'll be more than happy to prove a living God does not exist. Just tell me what proof is required.

[Clodhopper]

I'll be more than happy to prove a living God does not exist. Just tell me what proof you require.


??????

Ok - go for it. Any proof will do.

[Ahso!]

Clodhopper;1322579 wrote: ??????

Ok - go for it. Any proof will do.Also

http://www.leafpile.com/TravelLog/Roman ... /Sheep.htm

[Glaswegian]

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post, Clodhopper. I told a Forum member I would get back to him regarding a post of his in another thread. And that was several days ago. After I’ve done that I’ll respond to yours.

[Ahso!]

Have I proven it to your satisfaction, Clod? You said ANY proof will do, no? You are now free to take the stand that God absolutely does not exist.

[Clodhopper]

Sorry, don't see that as proof of the non-existence of God. It just shows that humans are often horrible to eachother.:-1

[Ahso!]

Well thats why I asked you to define what proof is required. What I posted is more than enough proof for many people including myself.

[Clodhopper]

Ahah! I think I see the problem: We are seeing the word "proof" differently. I want incontrovertible evidence that god does not exist. You have provided a piece of evidence which to me only proves that humans are often horrible to eachother. The only thing it says about God is that He (if He exists) will not save us from our folly - we have free will. It says nothing to me about His existence one way or the other.

[Ahso!]

Clodhopper;1322603 wrote: Ahah! I think I see the problem: We are seeing the word "proof" differently. I want incontrovertible evidence that god does not exist. You have provided a piece of evidence which to me only proves that humans are often horrible to eachother. The only thing it says about God is that He (if He exists) will not save us from our folly - we have free will. It says nothing to me about His existence one way or the other.Okay, tell me what proof would be incontrovertible and I'll attempt to present it.

There really is no problem other than whatever I present to you you will not accept while many, many others do. Tell me what is required.

[Clodhopper]

Okay, tell me what proof would be incontrovertible and I'll attempt to present it.

There really is no problem other than whatever I present to you you will not accept while many, many others do. Tell me what is required.


That many accept it as proof does not make it so. I don't think you can prove the non-existence of God, since a negative cannot be proven. Equally, I have no hard evidence FOR the existence of God.

Some days I look at photos such as the one you posted and think that if God exists and allows this, then I'm on the other side. Other days I get down on my knees and thank God for the wonder and beauty of His Creation. Am I confused? Yep!

[Ahso!]

I can definitely prove the non-existence of a living God if I only knew what to offer, but I think you're right about the proving of a negative. I also think the confusion many people experience on this matter is self inflicted and an addiction. If it doesn't sit right, that is the brain telling us to be at least skeptical if not out right adverse to the idea, rather than create stories to prop up a known non-truth.

[Clodhopper]

I think the most likely thing is that God does not exist. That when we die - that's it. End of story. We cease to be.

But being "most likely" is not certainty. I could be wrong. And in an area not subject (imo) to proof one way or the other I can't lay down the law for either side.

Faith Hope and Love, and the greatest of these is Love. I try to love, and I do hope, but faith? That's a struggle. Just hope that God (if He exists) will accept that two out of three ain't bad.

[Ahso!]

Once upon a time an adult decided it was time to tell the child that Santa Clause did not exist. The child said 'prove it' and the adult said, 'I made Santa Clause and now I am unmaking him.' The child said, 'why did you make him then?' To which the adult replied, 'because at the time I thought it was a good idea, but now it no longer is.' The child said, 'you lied! Why?' The adult says, 'that was before I knew better.'

[Clodhopper]

But God (if he exists as the great faiths tell us) was not made by Man and cannot be unmade by Man. And if we have invented Him, then while one person believes, he continues to exist. Just as Santa exists for many small children.

[Ahso!]

Only the story exists. The tale of Santa Clause, when told, never includes the fact that its a made up story either, but that does not make it a reality. If people want to continue to tell the story of a living God, then a disclaimer needs to be inserted into it. This is the 21st century and we now know better. People who continue to use religious references as fact sound like fools these days and those who hide behind silence or ambiguity know that too, including the silent believers (thats why they remain silent). Its time to change the narrative lest we all vanish due to our foolishness.Maya Angelou wrote: I did the best I could with what I knew, when I knew better I did better

[Clodhopper]

This is the 21st century and we now know better.


No. That's the thing. We DON'T know. Your belief in the non existence of God is as much a belief as any Christians' belief in God. Since neither the existence nor the non-existence of God can be proved, both belief and non-belief are a matter of faith.

[Ahso!]

Clodhopper;1322645 wrote: No. That's the thing. We DON'T know. Your belief in the non existence of God is as much a belief as any Christians' belief in God. Since neither the existence nor the non-existence of God can be proved, both belief and non-belief are a matter of faith.But I've already proven the non-existence of a living God. The fact that you choose not to accept the proof or offer me the opportunity to further prove it by providing me what would convince you is your problem of existence and not mine of non-existence.

You see, I can tell you what would convince me of the existence of a living God.

[Clodhopper]

But I've already proven the non-existence of a living God.


Er, where???? The Vietnam bombing pic you showed did not prove that God doesn't exist, any more than someone being kind to a stranger proves the existence of God.

[Clodhopper]

You see, I can tell you what would convince me of the existence of a living God.


Well the sky opening and a big bearded face beaming down and saying, "Now do you believe?" would probably do it for me!:wah:

What would do it for you?

[Ahso!]

Clodhopper;1322655 wrote: Er, where???? The Vietnam bombing pic you showed did not prove that God doesn't exist, any more than someone being kind to a stranger proves the existence of God.I could list thousands of proofs that are good enough for millions of people. The fact is that you just won't accept anything because you've decided that no proof is good enough otherwise you'd be able to tell me exactly what proof would be. The fact that you can't think of a legitimate and acceptable proof isn't due to lack of existence of proof, instead its due to your inability` unwillingness to accept any.

[Clodhopper]

I could list thousands of proofs that are good enough for millions of people. The fact is that you just won't accept anything because you've decided that no proof is good enough otherwise you'd be able to tell me exactly what proof would be. The fact that you can't think of a legitimate and acceptable proof isn't due to lack of existence of proof, instead its due to your inability` unwillingness to accept any.


Millions of people believe in God, but I don't take that as proof of God's existence. Equally, the fact that millions of people don't believe in God does not prove his non-existence. I say again, we are using the word "proof" in different ways. "Proof" to me means hard facts, incontrovertible evidence. You seem to be saying that if lots of people believe something, it is a proven fact. Which is clearly not the case.

And I gave an example of what I would regard as proof. I should perhaps add that if I were the only one who saw God's face that might prove his existence for me, but it couldn't do so for anyone else.

I'm sorry you are finding me irritating, but I can't say you have produced hard evidence of anything. Just data you interpret in a way to suit your case. Why and how does the bombing of a Vietnamese village prove that God does not exist?

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian wrote: Why do we never hear, for example, physicists bleating:

‘How dare you criticise my belief in the Second Law of Thermodynamics! You must respect this belief or I will be offended.’

Or mathematicians bleating:

‘How dare you criticise my belief in Pythagoras’ Theorem! You must respect this belief or I will be offended.’

Or astronomers bleating:

How dare you criticise my belief in Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion! You must respect this belief or I will be offended.

Here ‘belief’ should be understood along the lines of: ‘I believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has explanatory power: or I believe it is supported by a strong body of evidence.’


Clodhopper wrote: You are comparing chalk and cheese and blaming one for being worse at writing on a blackboard than the other.
Please flesh this out a bit more, Clod.

~o0o~


Glaswegian wrote: Many people also claim to have had subjective experience of angels, demons, djinn, talking to the dead, and of being abducted by aliens. But I don’t think these claims correspond to anything in reality. In my view, the evidence for them is utterly dubious. And this applies also to 'subjective experience of God'.


Clodhopper wrote: Yes. I know you think the evidence for these things is "dubious". Can you provide me with empirical proof of Love, and show me that Love exists? I should warn you that I have no experience of this so-called emotion and without proof will not accept that Love exists: all you folk claiming to have experience of it are just wrong.
I think you know very well that I cannot provide you with empirical proof of Love or any other subjective state. And you will probably also know the Philosophical arguments for why this is the case - and know that they are sound ones. But this does not stop you, me and innumerable other human beings from reaching an agreement on a range of phenomena which is to be understood as pointing to the existence of felt love - albeit in an indirect way.

For example, most of us would agree that a mother who hugs and kisses and pets her baby loves it: whereas a mother who throws her baby into a furnace does not. The behaviour of the first mother is viewed by the overwhelming majority of human beings as indicative of love - as evidence for it.

But what sort of phenomena is to count as evidence for the subjective experience of God - evidence which the overwhelming majority of human beings agree upon?

Tell me, Clod.

~o0o~


Glaswegian wrote: But the non-existence of Thor cannot be proved either. And nor can that of the all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent God, Clattysparrabaws. Apparently, this God is composed almost entirely of putrid toe fungus, and orbits the Andromeda Galaxy on the back of a dead pelican within whose maggot-ridden throat pouch He stores used condoms plucked from the interstellar void. Are you prepared to acknowledge the possible existence of these two Gods as well, Clodhopper?


Clodhopper wrote: In a Universe of infinite possibility, all things are possible. Therefore I believe in the possibility of the supreme being Clattywhoosis and co! Do you accept that that the Universe has infinite possibility?
Yes. If the universe is infinite then I would say that its possibilities are infinite too.

Clodhopper wrote: If you do, then do you accept the possibility of God?


Yes. I would say that God is possible in an infinite universe.

(Can you clarify something for me here? I’m assuming that by ‘God’ you mean the God of monotheism - the one who is allegedly omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. Is this the case?)

~o0o~


Clodhopper wrote: Now, why are you such a fanatic atheist?...
I think the threat which Religion poses to the survival of the human species has never been greater at any time in our history than it is now. I want to draw attention to this threat, confront it and work for its removal. If this makes me a fanatical atheist in your eyes then so be it, Clod.

[Clodhopper]

Oh bottoms. I've been reading and thinking about this for well over an hour. It's been keeping me from my bed! And I am enjoying our discussion - especially now I am convinced of your intellectual honesty. But no way am I going to answer until I am properly awake later today. (And given that I have people coming to fix things it may be much later...)

[Glaswegian]

Clodhopper;1322743 wrote: Oh bottoms. I've been reading and thinking about this for well over an hour. It's been keeping me from my bed! And I am enjoying our discussion - especially now I am convinced of your intellectual honesty. But no way am I going to answer until I am properly awake later today. (And given that I have people coming to fix things it may be much later...)
There's no rush. Answer when it's convenient.