Do you believe in God?

[Danoff]

To avoid piling on, I'll pick a different thing to respond to.

Logically you would only deduce that this was a mere coincidence.

That's not really how logic works. I'm not sure why logically concluding that the phrase "turn the other cheek" occurred to you when you turned your other cheek while praying... would be coincidence. It actually seems to be anything but coincidence (except divine intervention, that's even more outlandish than coincidence).

But to rationally conclude that something is likely coincidence (I'm not going to use the word logic here), you'd need a statistical argument. I'm happy to discuss logic and how it applies to religion, but I think first we need to start with a basic understanding of how logic works and how you might apply it.

So let's start with logic:

Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

and coincidence

Coincidence: a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.

Specifically, coincidences arise from statistics. Flip a coin enough times and you'll eventually get heads 10 times in a row. Your brain is wired to look for a causal connection in that kind of statistical outcome.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

To avoid piling on, I'll pick a different thing to respond to.



That's not really how logic works. I'm not sure why logically concluding that the phrase "turn the other cheek" occurred to you when you turned your other cheek while praying... would be coincidence. It actually seems to be anything but coincidence (except divine intervention, that's even more outlandish than coincidence).

But to rationally conclude that something is likely coincidence (I'm not going to use the word logic here), you'd need a statistical argument. I'm happy to discuss logic and how it applies to religion, but I think first we need to start with a basic understanding of how logic works and how you might apply it.

So let's start with logic:



and coincidence



Specifically, coincidences arise from statistics. Flip a coin enough times and you'll eventually get heads 10 times in a row. Your brain is wired to look for a causal connection in that kind of statistical outcome.

What, do you think then, would be the logical conclusion.

* I will respond to the other posts in the thread!

 

[Danoff]

What, do you think then, would be the logical conclusion.

I think what you're asking is whether I think there is a cause and/or what the cause would be for a thought to pop into your head while you were performing a related activity. My best guess would be that your brain brought up information related to what you were doing (which is what brains do). That's not a logical conclusion though. For a logical conclusion you'd need a set of premises from which one can draw a logical conclusion, and that's missing.

For example, here's a logical proof

Premise 1 - You had a thought
Premise 2 - All thoughts are introduced by God.

Logical conclusion - your thought was introduced by God.

There you go, a logical proof of god's intervention. All it required was assuming that thoughts are introduced by god and that you had a thought.

 

[Dotini]

It turns out that writing, religion and sky god belief may go back much further than previously thought.

Graphemic use in Upper Paleolithic art is a (relatively) new field but a sound one.

http://www.persee.fr/doc/dha_0755-7256_1993_num_19_1_2073

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/11/cave-painting-symbols-language-evolution

This paleo anthropologist traces up to 32 common grapheme symbols spread over western Europe across a span of 30,000 years.



Here she traces burials with symbolic grave goods going back 120,000 years. Also beings and actions from unseen worlds are documented, as well as shamanism and magic. Trance states of consciousness and the wiring of the human brain may be part of the roots of religion. She seems to peg religion and fully modern humans at ~40,000 years ago.

 

[JKgo]

....An interesting, albeit short, article about the Zoroastrianism and its influences on the three prominent Abrahamic religions - as well as a few other "cultural stuff".

BBC.

Warning: Due to the "seemingly" slipping standards of editorial at the BBC as a whole, there are some excruciating grammatical mistakes found in the article itself. Oh well.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

OK, let's give this a go

You'll have to forgive me if I don't quote every point as the end result would be far too long but if you want me to address a specific point then let me know

Not according to Jews he's not, therefore he is a false messiah and no different to the golden calf. The only way your claim is valid is if you are rather arrogantly forcing your faith onto Jews.

So the Jews don't believe in Jesus as the Messiah. We aren't forcing them to believe. A golden calf was never prophesized - it was just a convenient tool created to appease the masses, similar to what I believe Islam was.

Muhammad didn't create a God, its the exact same one that Jews and Christians worship, no new deity was created. Oh and technically you just committed blasphemy (god not God - really).

It's not the exact same because it was never a part of the OT/NT. If you want to believe that he was Ishmael's descendent then I guess we can look at what the scripture says about that...

He not a messiah, he's a prophet. And no he didn't create a "golden calf", its the exact same God from the exact same God from the exact same source!

Not really. The golden calf was the god "Allah"

And therefore would consider Jesus to be a "Golden Calf", they do not consider him to be the Messiah, nor the son of God, nor a part of any Holy Trinity.

No because they choose not to believe in Him

You mean apart from re-writing huge amount of it and having the fake messiah ransack a temple, abuse the priests repeatedly and attempt to convert as many Jews as possible (turning brother against brother, father against son, etc.). Oh and a good number of them did (and still do) blame the Jews for the death of Jesus, the Bible even once had a book in it dedicated to that exact train of thought.

So you believe He is a "fake messiah"? Interesting

Oh the irony. Do you actually know how much of the OT and NT are plagerised from other, older sources?

Noah for a start is totally and utterly nicked from Gillgamesh, and almost every part of Jesus' origin story can be found in numerous other, older faiths. A rather large amount of pot calling kettle black.

Do you mind sharing?

And Mulsims and Jews both believe the real Messiah has not yet come. They share almost exactly the same dietary laws.

But you wouldn't say Jews are the same as Muslims. Mohammad himself called us and the Jews "people of the book"

Again, not really because they (Christians) didn't "move on". They completely ******ised it (Judaism).
You seem to be totally and utterly ignoring just how much the NT actively fights against the Jewish faith and its established laws and rules (well apart from the ones it likes)

You seriously are displaying a huge amount or confirmation bias here.

Care to show how this is proportionate to what Mohammad did/said

How do you know you were not forced by God? How do you know that exact scenario was not exactly how God planned it?

The only way you would know that would be to know the exact mind of God, and I seriously doubt that to be the case.

I said that it was as God planned it.

Muhammad wasn't the Messiah nor did he ever claim to be. How many prophets were prophesised in the OT and NT? Or were they the ones doing the prophesying?

Hmm, well we were warned of false prophets:

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."

And of the anti-Christ

You should probably read some more about Islam so that you're not just writing lies.

Huh

See, it's not plagiarism when you cite your sources. Islam recognises the Torah, the Zabur of David and the Gospel of Jesus as the holy word of God. The God of Abraham, who is the same God of the Torah (and therefore the Jews) and the Bible (and therefore Christianity).

Then why are there differences to scripture? Why are Jews and Christians cursed by this "prophet"?

You can start by reading the Wikipedia page, because that alone will dispel many of the misunderstandings that you have.

Beware the great deceiver

Not really. At the moment it's not a debate. Islam by their own words worship the same God of Judaism and Christianity. They recognise Jewish and Christian holy texts as the word of their God, albeit the outdated and sometimes inaccurately recorded word.

So Jewish and Christian holy texts are outdated and wrong. Interesting!

 

[Scaff]

So the Jews don't believe in Jesus as the Messiah. We aren't forcing them to believe. A golden calf was never prophesized - it was just a convenient tool created to appease the masses, similar to what I believe Islam was.

The Golden Calf is a metapor, a false God or point of worship. As Islam hasn't changed the God (despite what you seem to claim by a failure to understand that English is not the only language on the planet) its not a Golden Calf.

As such a false messiah would very much be a metaphoric 'Golden Calf' to Jews, the only way it couldn't be would be for Jews to believe that Jesus was the Messiah!

It's not the exact same because it was never a part of the OT/NT. If you want to believe that he was Ishmael's descendent then I guess we can look at what the scripture says about that...

You are 100% certain that no part of the OT or NT has ever been altered or amended enough to use it as perfcetly accurate source of reference?

Not really. The golden calf was the god "Allah"

Allah is Arabic for God, Christian Arabs call your God Allah!

Its not a new God, its simply a different language.

Using your logic again Christians would have created a new God, as the God (as in the English spelling) is never written as such in a single Jewish text. Or does English get a pass that Arabic doesn't?

No because they choose not to believe in Him

Which would make him a metaphoric Golden Calf. Seriously do you not even get your own religions metaphors?

So you believe He is a "fake messiah"? Interesting

I was describing it from the point of reference of Jewish priests of the time, or do you think they considered him to be the actual Messiah (in which case a lot of the NT needs to be re-written).

Now from a personal point of view I have no belief in any God, and you can extend that to no belief in any associated messiah.

Do you mind sharing?

The Epic of Gilgamesh, its quite well known and predates Judaism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh#Noah.27s_Flood

Bonus for Jesus in comparative mythology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology

But you wouldn't say Jews are the same as Muslims. Mohammad himself called us and the Jews "people of the book"

I didn't say they were, I said they have more in common in regard to religious practices than Christians and Jews do. However the People of the Book only further highlights the shared God, if you actually know it origins that is.

Care to show how this is proportionate to what Mohammad did/said

Nice attempt to shift the focus, how about you address the point I made rather than attempt to change it utterly.

I said that it was as God planned it.

Then you have no free will.

So Jewish and Christian holy texts are outdated and wrong. Interesting!

Personally I find all three texts to be outdated and full of a huge number of errors.Or do you think that bats are birds and that rabbits ruminate? What about killing rude offspring?

 

[huskeR32]

So the Jews don't believe in Jesus as the Messiah. We aren't forcing them to believe.

Here's a similarly meaningless statement:

So the Christians don't believe in Muhammad as the Prophet. We aren't forcing them to believe.

You're just saying empty things. That the Jews don't hold Jesus to be the Messiah has no bearing on whether or not he actually is.

If it did, then Christians not believing in Muhammad as the Prophet would similarly make him so. Your logic is nonsensical, and you're applying it very selectively.

It's not the exact same because it was never a part of the OT/NT.

Muslims accept the first five books of the Old Testament (also known as the "Tawrat" and "Torah") as true; consider them Holy, in fact. Seeing as God's covenant with Abraham was established in the Tawrat, I'm utterly baffled at your attempts to deny that all three religions share a common deity, and to reject the fact that Islam is an Abrahamic faith.

Several people in here have suggested that you put in a cursory effort to educate yourself on these things before continuing. Please do so.

No because they choose not to believe in Him

They do "believe" in him, whatever that means; Islam accepts Jesus as the Jewish messiah, and they hold that he will return to Earth on the Day of Judgement to defeat the anti-Christ.

I suspect you're discounting all of this simply because they don't hold that Jesus is divine. But that's a far cry from your claim that they don't "believe" in him at all.

I said that it was as God planned it.

That doesn't answer the question. How do you know that God planned it? How do you know that God isn't ambivalent, indifferent, and completely un-involved? And that it's not the devil pulling all of these strings?

 

[Imari]

Huh

Beware the great deceiver

So Jewish and Christian holy texts are outdated and wrong. Interesting!

I see. You have no interest in educating yourself so that you can form an informed opinion. You've made up your mind based on biased hearsay.

One can debate differences of opinion and interpretation but if someone is making excuses so that they don't have to fill obvious gaps in their knowledge then there's just no point. You can lead a horse to a bar but you can't make him have a beer.

Thanks for playing. I'm done with you and your hatred for people who happen to not share your brand of fairy story. I hope one day you learn some curiosity and empathy. Best of luck.

 

[Dotini]

Thanks for playing. I'm done with you and your hatred for people who happen to not share your brand of fairy story. I hope one day you learn some curiosity and empathy. Best of luck.

You shouldn't go too hard on the poor believers in fairies, Imari. Our village is all of us, even the idiot. Probably no man here can match the level of curiosity and empathy you muster for us every day. You set a lofty standard the rest of us can only hope to aspire to.

 

[Danoff]

You shouldn't go too hard on the poor believers in fairies, Imari. Our village is all of us, even the idiot. Probably no man here can match the level of curiosity and empathy you muster for us every day. You set a lofty standard the rest of us can only hope to aspire to.

I know that you didn't explicitly say it, but @DLR_Mysterion is not the village idiot. He's indoctrinated.

 

[Dennisch]

I see. You have no interest in educating yourself so that you can form an informed opinion. You've made up your mind based on biased hearsay.

That's religion.

 

[Dotini]

Sometimes - rarely, I suppose, in today's pillowed and sanitized world - people have direct first person experiences which changes their lives from one sort of path to another.

 

[Danoff]

Sometimes - rarely, I suppose, in today's pillowed and sanitized world - people have direct first person experiences which changes their lives from one sort of path to another.

Yea, and sometimes that first person experience is with indoctrination.

 

[Dennisch]

Religion should be treated as any other mind altering substance. Not before you're an adult.

 

[Dotini]

Yea, and sometimes that first person experience is with indoctrination.

Okay, sure. We know that. We can choose whom we allow ourselves to be influenced by. But sometimes we do not have that advantage.

But I'm referring to life events which have profound and life-changing affects upon an individual.. The soldier in combat. The victim of a terrible accident or assault. Or the immediate family involved. An unexpected death in the family. Sometimes we cannot choose what befalls us or our family. In the way we react to life's unforeseen challenges we are sometimes tested, sometimes destroyed, and sometimes changed for the better.

 

[Danoff]

But I'm referring to life events which have profound and life-changing affects upon an individual.. The soldier in combat. The victim of a terrible accident or assault. Or the immediate family involved. An unexpected death in the family. Sometimes we cannot choose what befalls us or our family. In the way we react to life's unforeseen challenges we are sometimes tested, sometimes destroyed, and sometimes changed for the better.

Agreed... and none of those life-changing events cause you to debate whether one scripture is the proper translation of the word of god over another. You can find spirituality in those ways (irrationally, but that's kinda baked in), but you can't find religion... religion in the sense of established doctrine... in that way. Adopting a religious doctrine requires indoctrination (it's kinda in the name).

 

[Dotini]

Agreed... and none of those life-changing events cause you to debate whether one scripture is the proper translation of the word of god over another. You can find spirituality in those ways (irrationally, but that's kinda baked in), but you can't find religion... religion in the sense of established doctrine... in that way. Adopting a religious doctrine requires indoctrination (it's kinda in the name).

Well, if you say so, then it must be true. @Scaff has given you his stamp of approval!

However, I have known people who "found religion" because of a traumatic, life-altering event. They later went on to get involved with reading scripture and all that. The process of exactly which dogma you get involved with is probably secondary to the primary event and the "finding God" or "coming to Jesus", as it were.

 

[Danoff]

Well, if you say so, then it must be true. @Scaff has given you his stamp of approval!

However, I have known people who "found religion" because of a traumatic, life-altering event. They later went on to get involved with reading scripture and all that. The process of exactly which dogma you get involved with is probably secondary to the primary event and the "finding God" or "coming to Jesus", as it were.

You're agreeing with me. Becoming spiritual in response to trauma, and subsequently seeking indoctrination to fulfill the spirituality.

 

[Dotini]

You're agreeing with me. Becoming spiritual in response to trauma, and subsequently seeking indoctrination to fulfill the spirituality.

What was it that led up to your own coming to Ayn Rand?

 

[Danoff]

What was it that led up to your own coming to Ayn Rand?

Logic

 

[Dotini]

Logic

How old were you at the time?

 

[Danoff]

How old were you at the time?

Old enough to understand logic. I don't remember exactly... I think I was engaged to my wife.. so maybe... 21?

 

[Touring Mars]

Old enough to understand logic. I don't remember exactly... I think I was engaged to my wife.. so maybe... 21?

Really? As late as that? I thought you went here...

 

[Danoff]

Really? As late as that? I thought you went here...

No no, I founded that.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

I have an interesting question, with a caviat:

Can you prove that God does not exist,
Without using negative evidence,
Without using emotional manipulation
Without using historical content taken out of context.

I has this question on an article I read a few years ago:
http://happiness-seekers.com/2016/01/19/5-reasons-anti-mormon-arguments-are-totally-unconvincing/

I will admit that it is completely about my church, but the basic question remains if you are willing to take it.

I may or may not come back to look at the responses. I tend to get too involved in arguing if I look too frequently.

So, enjoy the thought process. I'll see what happens in a while.

 

[Famine]

I have an interesting question, with a caviat:

Can you prove that God does not exist,
Without using negative evidence,
Without using emotional manipulation
Without using historical content taken out of context

It's not a terribly interesting question. I'll demonstrate why:

Can you prove that Allah does not exist,
Without using negative evidence,
Without using emotional manipulation
Without using historical content taken out of context

Can you prove that Odin does not exist,
Without using negative evidence,
Without using emotional manipulation
Without using historical content taken out of context

Can you prove that Shrek does not exist,
Without using negative evidence,
Without using emotional manipulation
Without using historical content taken out of context

Can you prove that unicorns do not exist,
Without using negative evidence,
Without using emotional manipulation
Without using historical content taken out of context


The answer to all is 'no'. You cannot prove non-existence. You can only prove existence, and the inability to do so is, while not implicit proof of non-existence (because that can't happen), as strong an indicator as it gets. But then you're only ever one piece of evidence away from changing that.

 

[Scaff]

I have an interesting question, with a caviat:

Can you prove that God does not exist,
Without using negative evidence,
Without using emotional manipulation
Without using historical content taken out of context.

I has this question on an article I read a few years ago:
http://happiness-seekers.com/2016/01/19/5-reasons-anti-mormon-arguments-are-totally-unconvincing/

I will admit that it is completely about my church, but the basic question remains if you are willing to take it.

I may or may not come back to look at the responses. I tend to get too involved in arguing if I look too frequently.

So, enjoy the thought process. I'll see what happens in a while.

I have a much more interesting question, that unlike yours can actually be answered.

Can you prove that God does exist,
Without using evidence that doesn't meet a repeatable, falsifiable standard
Without using emotional manipulation
Without using historical content taken out of context

Now if you can manage that you're going to get a lot of people paying attention.

 

[Grippy]

If God doesn't exist... Why does the bible exist? Why does it say that god exists... And who wrote it? How long has it lived on for? Can we trust the legitimacy x source of when it was first written? do we even know?

 

[polysmut]

If God doesn't exist... Why does the bible exist? Why does it say that god exists... And who wrote it? How long has it lived on for? Can we trust the legitimacy x source of when it was first written? do we even know?

I think that even if there is a God, the people who wrote holy books didn't have any real knowledge or evidence of it.