[arista]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

I love science fiction. Thanks for the tip.

No he even did a great Ch4 Docu on it.


There Is No God

I am Rude on that.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by arista

No he even did a great Ch4 Docu on it.


There Is No God

I am Rude on that.

Yet you still offer no absolute PROOF.

[Marsh.]

There's even a movie to go with it. Hmm, might give it a try.
Are there any sequels?

[arista]

Originally Posted by angus58

Yet you still offer no absolute PROOF.

I do not have to.


You as the God Trustee
Have to Prove it.

[arista]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

There's even a movie to go with it. Hmm, might give it a try.
Are there any sequels?

Yes there will be.



Keep On Keepin' On 08marsh

[Stu]

Yes, Repetetive Posting II : I Think This Is Going Nowhere.

Dawkins plays the Abrahamic God in it only he never appears on screen. His in the credits, though, and the dialogue makes numerous mention of him.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by arista

I do not have to.


You as the God Trustee
Have to Prove it.

Ah, but I'm not the God Trustee, I don't bat for either side since neither side can provide any proof. You, however, are adamant there is NO God yet you have not offered proof just your opinion, so YES you do have to prove it, whilst I, who have not made any assertion that there IS a God do not

[arista]

I do not Need Proof.

Only You Do.

There Is No God.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by arista

I do not Need Proof.

Only You Do.

There Is No God.

No Arista - my point is that you cannot present your own personal opinion as a fact without any actual proof - that makes your opinion as invalid as that of the very people you despise.

[arista]

Originally Posted by angus58

No Arista - my point is that you cannot present your own personal opinion as a fact without any actual proof - that makes your opinion as invalid as that of the very people you despise.

Only To You.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by angus58

Yet you still offer no absolute PROOF.

Why do you need absolute proof? Lets both agree that there is no benevolent primordial creator physically intervening in the affairs of the world. The merciless cruelty and moral indifference of the world is proof enough of that.

Christians are right to point out that the existence of a world independent of our senses can never be absolutely disproven. But the greatest error Christians make (and many non-Christians too) is to propose that knowledge of 'a priori truths' such as the existence of God, the eternal or universal truths offer us any lasting insight into the human condition or even any such possible metaphysical world. Only a Christian needs such absolution.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Why do you need absolute proof? Lets both agree that there is no benevolent primordial creator physically intervening in the affairs of the world. The merciless cruelty and moral indifference of the world is proof enough of that.

Christians are right to point out that the existence of a world independent of our senses can never be absolutely disproven. But the greatest error Christians make (and many non-Christians too) is to propose that knowledge of 'a priori truths' such as the existence of God, the eternal or universal truths offer us any lasting insight into the human condition or even any such possible metaphysical world. Only a Christian needs such absolution.

Why should I agree when once again you offer nothing but your own opinion, whilst deriding the lack of evidence that you say is absent from those who follow their various religions? Why is there one standard of proof required from them, but a lesser one from those who arrogantly and imperiously state quite categorically there is no God.

For the record, I personally do not require any definitive proof for either position - I am acting as the devil's advocate in pointing out that neither position can offer any empirical evidence, just conjecture based on subjective observations of the world around us.

I reject both positions as irrelevant, since commonsense tells me that there is only one moral truth necessary for all of us to live harmoniously, respectfully, considerately and compassionately and that is to treat others as you would wish to be treated. Simplistic? sure. Logical? of course. Implementable? Probably not, precisely because of the age old jockeying for power and influence by the various religious and secular factions.

Sadly, there are many in this world who do harm and cause misery to others, often citing their religious OR secular beliefs as justification for unconscionable actions. I can't see an end to that situation any time this millennium, or the next.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by angus58

Why should I agree when once again you offer nothing but your own opinion, whilst deriding the lack of evidence that you say is absent from those who follow their various religions? Why is there one standard of proof required from them, but a lesser one from those who arrogantly and imperiously state quite categorically there is no God.

I am not asking you to agree there is no God. I am saying we ought to agree there is no corporeal God who co-exists with us in the physical world, who created the world in seven days and who intervenes in our lives. An example this would be trial by ordeal where God alone supposedly decides the guilt or innocence of the convicted. I figured rejecting this view was a given seen as we are not superstitious or living in the middle ages. If God presided over the events of our lives, how could he possibly allow injustice to occur?

Originally Posted by angus58

For the record, I personally do not require any definitive proof for either position - I am acting as the devil's advocate in pointing out that neither position can offer any empirical evidence, just conjecture based on subjective observations of the world around us.

It is not possible for an omnipotent, morally perfect God to allow the state of affairs that the world finds itself in. No Christian God can be said to have any agency in a world that is bereft of moral order like ours is. Good people are very often dealt the shit card in life and vice versa. This is the reason Christians needed to believe in an afterlife in the first place. It follows from this that in order for the Christian God to exist, our senses must somehow be deceiving us and that only self-evident statements can tell us everything we can know about the 'true world'. That God and the human soul are somehow necessary truths. This is the position that most modern Christians take. I am arguing from the position that reason cannot tell us anything about what lies beyond what we can see with our own eyes, given that reason is a relatively recent invention in human history.

Originally Posted by angus58

I reject both positions as irrelevant, since commonsense tells me that there is only one moral truth necessary for all of us to live harmoniously, respectfully, considerately and compassionately and that is to treat others as you would wish to be treated. Simplistic? sure. Logical? of course. Implementable? Probably not, precisely because of the age old jockeying for power and influence by the various religious and secular factions.

But morality is not common sense at all. There have been many cultures with moral codes and norms completely abbhorent to our Western, neo-Christian sensibilities. How did common sense elude the Greeks and Romans when they took slaves and gave them no rights whatsoever? What about Indian cultures that abided by a strict caste system and excluded those born into 'chandala' families from activities afforded to everybody else, including drinking water from anywhere other than puddles and swamps? And even today, we have the prevalence of muslim countries which afford few rights to women and persecute Christians and Jews. This was/is a normal way of life for these people. Genocide was morally acceptable for the Mongols, imperial Russia, the Ottoman Empire, imperial Japan, the Nazis, communists, etc. Human nature doesn't paint such a flattering picture. Morality as we know is not innate or intuitive. Universal notions of the rights of man and that everybody is equal are an invention of Christianity.

Originally Posted by angus58

Sadly, there are many in this world who do harm and cause misery to others, often citing their religious OR secular beliefs as justification for unconscionable actions. I can't see an end to that situation any time this millennium, or the next.

I agree. No universal thought system has ever worked in moulding the world in its own image. It's time we gave up.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Why do you need absolute proof? Lets both agree that there is no benevolent primordial creator physically intervening in the affairs of the world. The merciless cruelty and moral indifference of the world is proof enough of that.

Christians are right to point out that the existence of a world independent of our senses can never be absolutely disproven. But the greatest error Christians make (and many non-Christians too) is to propose that knowledge of 'a priori truths' such as the existence of God, the eternal or universal truths offer us any lasting insight into the human condition or even any such possible metaphysical world. Only a Christian needs such absolution.

I agree. At a push I can sort of understand the argument sometimes used that God gives everyone a choice and so that's why atrocities such as the Holocaust were commited. But I cant see how any Christian could look at a natural disaster like Haiti, or the Tsunami and still maintain that God has the ability to intervene in the world.

[keithafc]

Iv always said, there is probably more chance of a spirit world than a lone god who created the world in 7 days..

[Stu]

It's hillarious because in Genesis days were only created on the fourth 'day' anyway.

[Sticks]

Originally Posted by keithafc

Iv always said, there is probably more chance of a spirit world than a lone god who created the world in 7 days..

6 days he rested on the 7th

[Angus]

originally posted by BB Eye
"But morality is not common sense at all. There have been many cultures with moral codes and norms completely abbhorent to our Western, neo-Christian sensibilities. How did common sense elude the Greeks and Romans when they took slaves and gave them no rights whatsoever? What about Indian cultures that abided by a strict caste system and excluded those born into 'chandala' families from activities afforded to everybody else, including drinking water from anywhere other than puddles and swamps? And even today, we have the prevalence of muslim countries which afford few rights to women and persecute Christians and Jews. This was/is a normal way of life for these people. Genocide was morally acceptable for the Mongols, imperial Russia, the Ottoman Empire, imperial Japan, the Nazis, communists, etc. Human nature doesn't paint such a flattering picture. Morality as we know is not innate or intuitive. Universal notions of the rights of man and that everybody is equal are an invention of Christianity."




I completely agree that morality is neither innate or intuitive, it evolves over time and through experience. For me my morality is rooted in pragmatism - I have to function and live in a society with so many different people with often diametrically opposed beliefs, backgrounds, culture etc etc, whose ideas of morality I sometimes find abhorrent since they cause dissent, offence, oppression or harm to others. The tenet by which I live my life is commonsense to ME since it covers both my own instinctive desire not to cause harm, distress or offence to others, but it also sits well with societal demands that require the same restraints.

Irrespective of which philosophy or religion the notions of equality and compassion for others originated from, I cannot help but agree with them. After all, every act of evil and injustice in this world is committed by those who do not recognise the rights of others to live the one life they have without fear of oppression or harm.

However, just because I follow the golden rule does not make me a push over. The golden rule requires recipricocity. Treating others as you would be treated is a two way street - if a person chooses to cause harm to another, then they can only expect to be treated likewise. I don't subscribe to the "turn the other cheek" philosophy since that simply enables and validates abhorrent behaviour.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Sticks

6 days he rested on the 7th

It is also generally agreed by Bible scholars that "days" is a metaphorical term whereby a single day might have been millennia. Nevertheless, if one believes in an omnipotent God, then surely that God would be capable of doing anything within any time frame?