What makes religion okay?

[visceral_instinct]

I'm not the first person to ask this. But anyway.

If I believed that the world was ruled by 2 giant scorpions, was open about the fact that I believed in them and prayed to them, used expressions like 'Scorpion Gods only know...' etc. most people would at best take that as a joke, at worst ask me if I'd been taking some kind of narcotic.

But what makes my Scorpion Gods different from God, Allah, Yahweh or whoever?

Nothing more than the fact that many people believe in them, therefore it is considered normal.

Discuss?

[C1ay]

Believe in what ever you want. Just don't go around berating people and telling them that they're going to hell if they don't believe the same as you...

[visceral_instinct]

I agree with the viewpoint you just expressed. I'm just curious about the ones who don't.

[lightgigantic]

I'm not the first person to ask this. But anyway.

If I believed that the world was ruled by 2 giant scorpions, was open about the fact that I believed in them and prayed to them, used expressions like 'Scorpion Gods only know...' etc. most people would at best take that as a joke, at worst ask me if I'd been taking some kind of narcotic.

But what makes my Scorpion Gods different from God, Allah, Yahweh or whoever?

Nothing more than the fact that many people believe in them, therefore it is considered normal.

Discuss?
that's an argument?

First you would have to examine people who claim the universe is ruled by two giant scorpions (which seems to be very few people) and then make a comparison with persons who claim the universe is ruled by god.

Then you could compare to see what enduring social, moral and philosophical systems they produced.

Otherwise one could use your argument to argue


If I believed that justice involved shooting people for absolutely no reason, was open about the fact that I believed in it , and used expressions like 'it was justice' etc, after deeming it ok to kill people for absolutely no reason, most people would at best take that as a joke, at worst ask me if I'd been taking some kind of narcotic or escaped from a mental hospital.

But what makes my justice different from any existing social system of laws?

Nothing more than the fact that many people believe in them, therefore it is considered normal.

:shrug:

[visceral_instinct]

Your post makes no sense. There are obvious moral and ethical reasons for not killing people. The hypothetical person who believes in the Scorpion Gods and the real people who believe in God are just as irrational as each other, so what makes one right and one wrong?

[lightgigantic]

Your post makes no sense. There are obvious moral and ethical reasons for not killing people. The hypothetical person who believes in the Scorpion Gods and the real people who believe in God are just as irrational as each other, so what makes one right and one wrong?
There are also obvious reasons why people worship god.

If you don't believe me just examine what enduring social, moral and philosophical systems they produce.

If you don't want to examine that, then you are simply offering an argument that has no requirement to examine obvious social, moral and philosophical reasoning (and as indicated it has somewhat hazardous implications)

[Cris]

No religious belief has any basis in fact and while such fantasies are equally foolish as omni giant scorpians and flying spagetti monsters, it is not these representations that people choose to believe.

The gods represented in mainsteam religions have predominantly human-like characteristics or are otherwise neutral or faceless. Giant scorpians are not something people could relate to as being things that would be sympathetic to the human condition.

The key underlying characteristic of any religion is the promise of life beyond death and the acceptance of that idea would only result from perceiving something that is not so obviously idiotic as giant scorpians.

[lightgigantic]

No religious belief has any basis in fact
do you want to stand by that absolute statement or retreat into the philosophical safer realm of weak atheism/agnosticism?

[Cris]

Essentially people will only accept some form of anthropomorphized object as their deity.

[Cris]

lg,

do you want to stand by that absolute statement or retreat into the philosophical safer realm of weak atheism/agnosticism?If you believe me wrong then quote a fact that demonstrates a god exists.

[SnakeLord]

First you would have to examine people who claim the universe is ruled by two giant scorpions (which seems to be very few people) and then make a comparison with persons who claim the universe is ruled by god.

It is important to note at this point that 'truth' is not established by majority vote.

Then you could compare to see what enduring social, moral and philosophical systems they produced.


It is important to note at this point that 'truth' is not established because of how nice or respectful any governing systems of belief are. The man who worships giant scorpions might be a mass murderer. His murder spree does not in any way, shape or form negate the possible existence of those giant scorpions.

Try harder next time.

[lightgigantic]

It is important to note at this point that 'truth' is not established by majority vote.



It is important to note at this point that 'truth' is not established because of how nice or respectful any governing systems of belief are. The man who worships giant scorpions might be a mass murderer. His murder spree does not in any way, shape or form negate the possible existence of those giant scorpions.

Try harder next time.
Its important to note at this point, the question in issue is "But what makes my Scorpion Gods different from God, Allah, Yahweh or whoever?"

:p

[lightgigantic]

lg,

If you believe me wrong then quote a fact that demonstrates a god exists.
No need

If you believe you are right, you have to demonstrate how you have all the facts of all religions.

A more correct statement (of the weak atheism variety) would be something like "If a religion is based on facts, I am not aware of it"

(absolute negatives and atheism are a poor marriage)

[SnakeLord]

Its important to note at this point, the question in issue is "But what makes my Scorpion Gods different from God, Allah, Yahweh or whoever?"

Then I think it's important to note that you've misunderstood what he's asking.. He points it out again in his second post.

It's very doubtful that he really needed, (or asked), for you to tell him that allah has more worshippers/believers than scorpion man lol.

Try harder.

[BlueMoose]

I'm not the first person to ask this. But anyway.But what makes my Scorpion Gods different from God, Allah, Yahweh or whoever?
-The spelling ? ;) :cool:

[Cris]

lg,

If you believe you are right, you have to demonstrate how you have all the facts of all religions.Total nonsense. Religions are so keen to assert they are right that if any of them ever had any facts they'd be stuffing them down our throats without hesitation.

Instead they go out of their way to stress their beliefs are based on FAITH. Which is specifically belief in the ABSENCE of facts.

Any reasonable person should have no doubt that there is no religion that has a factual basis. And until at least one of them can show a single fact then my assertion that none of them have any is completely justifiable.

[Cyperium]

I'm not the first person to ask this. But anyway.

If I believed that the world was ruled by 2 giant scorpions, was open about the fact that I believed in them and prayed to them, used expressions like 'Scorpion Gods only know...' etc. most people would at best take that as a joke, at worst ask me if I'd been taking some kind of narcotic.

But what makes my Scorpion Gods different from God, Allah, Yahweh or whoever?

Nothing more than the fact that many people believe in them, therefore it is considered normal.

Discuss?We don't place a image in front of God, like a scorpion or whatever, no one knows what He looks like, we know that we are created in His image, but does that reffer to our physical body or rather the love and spiritual things that we share with Him? I would rather think the latter, but it is not unthinkable that He looks like us either.

Rather we think of God (if we look at it fundamentally) as a intelligent being of spiritual nature, which is behind all this and which we are inferior to.

I find it hard that everything that exists doesn't have a meaning, that our life doesn't have a purpouse and that we just stop existing when we die.

I can understand why people think that we don't exist as our body after we die, but can anyone say in which form existance must be? Is it required to have a brain? It is said that it arises from the complexity of the brain, why? What is that complexity similiar to to give rise to the feeling of existance?

We can never know for sure through evidence and so on in the world, but we can feel in our heart that it is true and have faith in it.

[lightgigantic]

lg,

Total nonsense. Religions are so keen to assert they are right that if any of them ever had any facts they'd be stuffing them down our throats without hesitation.
whatever religions may do, you made the statement

No religious belief has any basis in fact

this is an absolute statement
It is also a negative statement
hence, absolute negative

once again, if you believe you are right, you have to demonstrate how you have all the facts of all religions and how they have no basis.

Anything less and you are making a fallacious statement



Instead they go out of their way to stress their beliefs are based on FAITH. Which is specifically belief in the ABSENCE of facts.

Any reasonable person should have no doubt that there is no religion that has a factual basis. And until at least one of them can show a single fact then my assertion that none of them have any is completely justifiable.
hence a more accurate statement would be something like, "If a religion is based on facts, I am not aware of it"

[lightgigantic]

It's very doubtful that he really needed, (or asked), for you to tell him that allah has more worshippers/believers than scorpion man lol.


there's also the small issue of enduring social, moral and philosophical systems they produced.
;)

[SnakeLord]

there's also the small issue of enduring social, moral and philosophical systems they produced.


The question is about the belief itself. Why would you ridicule, (the word will suffice for the example), a man that claims he believes in and worships a giant scorpion being but not expect ridicule for your own beliefs which are ultimately equal in their level of irrationality?

Saying you have morals would prove pointless, or that your system of beliefs has assigned moral values.. That in itself does not negate the irrationality of the belief, the faith.

Here is his second post statement for you:

"The hypothetical person who believes in the Scorpion Gods and the real people who believe in God are just as irrational as each other, so what makes one right and one wrong?"

Both beliefs are worthy of equal ridicule but you would espouse that yours isn't because...?

Remember lg, the belief - not side issues like morality given that the scorpion worshipper could be equally or more moral but that does not give the belief any merit.

[Cris]

lg,

whatever religions may do, you made the statement

No religious belief has any basis in fact

this is an absolute statement
It is also a negative statement
hence, absolute negative

once again, if you believe you are right, you have to demonstrate how you have all the facts of all religions and how they have no basis.

Anything less and you are making a fallacious statement

“ Instead they go out of their way to stress their beliefs are based on FAITH. Which is specifically belief in the ABSENCE of facts.

Any reasonable person should have no doubt that there is no religion that has a factual basis. And until at least one of them can show a single fact then my assertion that none of them have any is completely justifiable. ”

hence a more accurate statement would be something like, "If a religion is based on facts, I am not aware of it"Gee - why be so damn verbose. If you think I'm wrong quote a friggin fact and end the argument.

You can't because there isn't any. If there was you'd be screaming it at us.

Come on be real - there is no single fact to support any religious belief. And you know it. Admit it and be honest for once.

[lightgigantic]

The question is about the belief itself. Why would you ridicule, (the word will suffice for the example), a man that claims he believes in and worships a giant scorpion being but not expect ridicule for your own beliefs which are ultimately equal in their level of irrationality?

Saying you have morals would prove pointless, or that your system of beliefs has assigned moral values.. That in itself does not negate the irrationality of the belief, the faith.

Here is his second post statement for you:

"The hypothetical person who believes in the Scorpion Gods and the real people who believe in God are just as irrational as each other, so what makes one right and one wrong?"

Both beliefs are worthy of equal ridicule but you would espouse that yours isn't because...?

Remember lg, the belief - not side issues like morality given that the scorpion worshipper could be equally or more moral but that does not give the belief any merit.

I'm not aware of any social or moral systems (regardless of whether they are enduring or not) that are not based on some philosophical system.

In other words its not clear how (or why) some one would separate belief from philosophy, much like the parallel analogy I gave about justice appears equally strange since it is also divorced from any philosophical reasoning
:shrug:.

[lightgigantic]

lg,

Gee - why be so damn verbose. If you think I'm wrong quote a friggin fact and end the argument.
Once again, there is no need
Absolute negatives don't warrant any further detailed discussion
The reason is of course because absolute negatives can only be deemed valid according to belief.

You can't because there isn't any. If there was you'd be screaming it at us.
no point screaming at a person to change their beliefs
progressive discussion begins from the point of ""If a religion is based on facts, I am not aware of it" as opposed to "No religious belief has any basis in fact"

Come on be real - there is no single fact to support any religious belief. And you know it. Admit it and be honest for once.
you make a statement that is an absolute negative
I point it out to you
And therefore I am dishonest?

[SnakeLord]

In other words its not clear how (or why) some one would separate belief from philosophy, much like the parallel analogy I gave about justice appears equally strange since it is also divorced from any philosophical reasoning

It should be more than clear. Perhaps it's an idea to go back and read my post again.

As you might recall, I know Lenny the leprechaun. I have the Book of Lenny which has a vast array of moral rules, social rules and so on. How do any of those aspects make my belief [knowledge] in Lenny any more rational? Well?

[lightgigantic]

It should be more than clear. Perhaps it's an idea to go back and read my post again.

As you might recall, I know Lenny the leprechaun. I have the Book of Lenny which has a vast array of moral rules, social rules and so on. How do any of those aspects make my belief [knowledge] in Lenny any more rational? Well?
Before we begin a serious investigation of the enduring social, moral and philosophical systems produced by lenny leprechaunism, you might have to convince us that you are not merely an atheist offering a rhetorical argument

(IOW it appears you are offering a philosophical system of atheism, as opposed to a philosophical system of theism)

;)

[SnakeLord]

Before we begin a serious investigation of the enduring social, moral and philosophical systems produced by lenny leprechaunism, you might have to convince us that you are not merely an atheist offering a rhetorical argument


Likewise you might have to convince us that you're not just talking out of your anus with regards to your god beings.

So.. as it stands, can you say why your beliefs in gods should not be considered as irrational to the same degree as the scorpion god belief?

[lightgigantic]

Likewise you might have to convince us that you're not just talking out of your anus with regards to your god beings.
once again, it's easy to indicate enduring social, moral and philosophical systems (outside of my hearsay, or anus, if you prefer)

So.. as it stands, can you say why your beliefs in gods should not be considered as irrational to the same degree as the scorpion god belief?
I can easily indicate enduring social,moral and philosophical systems in regards to god.
When I take a cursory look at the belief of scorpion gods, perhaps I can scratch a few animistic examples, but otherwise, going from this thread, all I have to work with is a circle of sneering atheists offering rhetorical arguments.
Needless to say, animistic religions are not famous for contributing elaborate philosophical systems, but at least they can offer something substantial as opposed to the hearsay of rhetorical atheists.

[SnakeLord]

once again, it's easy to indicate enduring social, moral and philosophical systems (outside of my hearsay, or anus, if you prefer)

Once again, what is it you think moral and social systems actually do to show that some claimed entity actually exists?

I can easily indicate enduring social,moral and philosophical systems in regards to god.
When I take a cursory look at the belief of scorpion gods, perhaps I can scratch a few animistic examples, but otherwise, going from this thread, all I have to work with is a circle of sneering atheists offering rhetorical arguments.

Once again, what is it you think moral, social blah blah actually does to establish the existence of claimed beings?

but at least they can offer something substantial as opposed to the hearsay of rhetorical atheists.

This is the exact point. For some reason you think you're justified in ridiculing others, (while not being qualified - which has always been your key argument), but why do you think you do not deserve ridicule back? What do you think makes your belief in those blue gods of yours in any way rational?

(Note: I am a moral person, the Book of Lenny has moral/social systems etc. How do they establish that Lenny exists?)

[Myles]

once again, it's easy to indicate enduring social, moral and philosophical systems (outside of my hearsay, or anus, if you prefer)


I can easily indicate enduring social,moral and philosophical systems in regards to god.
When I take a cursory look at the belief of scorpion gods, perhaps I can scratch a few animistic examples, but otherwise, going from this thread, all I have to work with is a circle of sneering atheists offering rhetorical arguments.
Needless to say, animistic religions are not famous for contributing elaborate philosophical systems, but at least they can offer something substantial as opposed to the hearsay of rhetorical atheists.

You can indicate nothing in my experience. I'm still waiting for your example of an anthropic argument to support atheism. How about it ?

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“
once again, it's easy to indicate enduring social, moral and philosophical systems (outside of my hearsay, or anus, if you prefer)
”
Once again, what is it you think moral and social systems actually do to show that some claimed entity actually exists?

To argue that because the worship of two scorpions is absurd, the worship of god is absurd, is not even a coherent argument

“
I can easily indicate enduring social,moral and philosophical systems in regards to god.
When I take a cursory look at the belief of scorpion gods, perhaps I can scratch a few animistic examples, but otherwise, going from this thread, all I have to work with is a circle of sneering atheists offering rhetorical arguments.
”
Once again, what is it you think moral, social blah blah actually does to establish the existence of claimed beings?
you don't think philosophy is a good tool to determine validity?

“
but at least they can offer something substantial as opposed to the hearsay of rhetorical atheists.
”
This is the exact point. For some reason you think you're justified in ridiculing others, (while not being qualified - which has always been your key argument), but why do you think you do not deserve ridicule back? What do you think makes your belief in those blue gods of yours in any way rational?
in short - philosophy
animism has very little philosophy
rhetorical arguments have practically none

(Note: I am a moral person, the Book of Lenny has moral/social systems etc. How do they establish that Lenny exists?)
meh
more rhetoric

[lightgigantic]

You can indicate nothing in my experience.
You come from a society that doesn't have laws?

[Myles]

You come from a society that doesn't have laws?

All societies have laws, rules, taboos and so on. God not necessary.

Worshiping scorpions means that we know we are worshiping something that exists. God is a worse bet

[lightgigantic]

All societies have laws, rules, taboos and so on. God not necessary.
only if you can indicate a society that has developed outside of any reactions or influences to religiosity

Worshiping scorpions means that we know we are worshiping something that exists. God is a worse bet
well I guess everyone has to start somewhere
:p

[Cris]

lg,

You dont seem to have any relevant point. If you think any religion has a factual basis then all you have to do is quote the facts. We both know very well that there are absolutely no facts to support religious claims and we know equally well you are incapable of quoting any.

Humans have been around for about 20,000 years and have invented countless religions and superstitions, and in all that time not a single fact has been shown to support any of those claims. So how many more thousands of years do you suggest we wait before we can be sure that religions have no factual basis?

So please stop your absurd semantic nit picking and simply admit religious ideas are not based on fact. Surely it must be as obvious to you as it is to me. So what's your hang-up about not admitting such a simple obvious truth?

[lightgigantic]

lg,

You dont seem to have any relevant point. If you think any religion has a factual basis then all you have to do is quote the facts. We both know very well that there are absolutely no facts to support religious claims and we know equally well you are incapable of quoting any.
once again,

No religious belief has any basis in fact

is a statement of belief (of the absolute negative variety)
and

if a religion is based on facts, I am not aware of any

is a statement that doesn't suffer from critical reflexivity.
The relevant point is that absolute negatives do not form the foundation of progressive discussion - aside from any particular issues of religion, god or facts, etc.

(no point responding to the rest of your post since you are simply reiterating the same absolute negative)

[wsionynw]

if a religion is based on facts, I am not aware of any


LG, if there is any religion based on facts, please state them.

[lightgigantic]

LG, if there is any religion based on facts, please state them.
interesting question my friend!

To answer that we have to look at how factual claims are determined to be actually - well - factual!

Suppose I was making a particular claim in physics about electrons.
How would you determine the claims to be factual?

[wsionynw]

interesting question my friend!

To answer that we have to look at how factual claims are determined to be actually - well - factual!

Suppose I was making a particular claim in physics about electrons.
How would you determine the claims to be factual?

With electrons, gravity, quantum theory, etc, you can make scientific predictions based on what you believe to be true.

With faith based claims regarding the wishes and powers of a God, predictions seem to be limited to simple nonesense or self fulfilling prophecies.

[lightgigantic]

With electrons, gravity, quantum theory, etc, you can make scientific predictions based on what you believe to be true.
I see
so the key is to have a correct theoretical foundation before one begins investigating the validity/invalidity of a claim

With faith based claims regarding the wishes and powers of a God, predictions seem to be limited to simple nonesense or self fulfilling prophecies.
it's unclear what you are talking about here
maybe you could provide an actual example

[SnakeLord]

To argue that because the worship of two scorpions is absurd, the worship of god is absurd, is not even a coherent argument

It's not clear how this is an answer to my question. Indeed it seems entirely irrelevant to it.

"Once again, what is it you think moral and social systems actually do to show that some claimed entity actually exists?"

you don't think philosophy is a good tool to determine validity?

You will have to be more specific. Give me an example that determines validity.

meh
more rhetoric

You're wrong. Try answering the question, it would make a welcome change.

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“
To argue that because the worship of two scorpions is absurd, the worship of god is absurd, is not even a coherent argument
”
It's not clear how this is an answer to my question. Indeed it seems entirely irrelevant to it.

"Once again, what is it you think moral and social systems actually do to show that some claimed entity actually exists?"
maybe you could back track and see what three things (as opposed to two things) were indicated as enduring systems.
It could also indicate something that the worship of two scorpions lack in comparison to god
:D

“
you don't think philosophy is a good tool to determine validity?
”
You will have to be more specific. Give me an example that determines validity.
I can easily indicate enduring social,moral and philosophical systems in regards to god.
When I take a cursory look at the belief of scorpion gods, perhaps I can scratch a few animistic examples, but otherwise, going from this thread, all I have to work with is a circle of sneering atheists offering rhetorical arguments.
:p


“
meh
more rhetoric
”
You're wrong. Try answering the question, it would make a welcome change.
sorry
it's the nature of rhetorical questions that they don't warrant responses

[SnakeLord]

maybe you could back track and see what three things (as opposed to two things) were indicated as enduring systems.
It could also indicate something that the worship of two scorpions lack in comparison to god

Maybe you could back track to the question, work out what it is actually asking and then answer it relevantly.

I can easily indicate enduring social,moral and philosophical systems in regards to god.

Ok so... yet again: how do those systems actually show that some god entity exists?

it's the nature of rhetorical questions that they don't warrant responses

Indeed. My question wasn't rhetorical however. Waiting for the answer.

[Myles]

interesting question my friend!

To answer that we have to look at how factual claims are determined to be actually - well - factual!

Suppose I was making a particular claim in physics about electrons.
How would you determine the claims to be factual?

Nonsense, hogwash, rubbish. You are very close to trolling. Answer the question with what you regard as verifiable facts. We can ask questions if we do not understand your answer.

[Cris]

lg,

No religious belief has any basis in fact

is a statement of belief (of the absolute negative variety)No. It is an undeniable statement of fact.

FACT - something that is actual.

FACT - no religion in the history of mankind has been able demonstrate that any of its claims are based on actuallity.

Are any of my statements falsifiable? Yes - it takes just one person to show that a religious claim is actual.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. ~Stephen J. Gould

[visceral_instinct]

There are also obvious reasons why people worship god.

If you don't believe me just examine what enduring social, moral and philosophical systems they produce.

If you don't want to examine that, then you are simply offering an argument that has no requirement to examine obvious social, moral and philosophical reasoning (and as indicated it has somewhat hazardous implications)

Yup - there are obvious reasons why people worship God. That doesn't make God real.

As Snakelord keeps pointing out, it's not a question of those people's morals, it's a question of why it is more rational to believe in one hypothetical entity than another.

[Non-Logical-Idea-Guy]

I'm not the first person to ask this. But anyway.

If I believed that the world was ruled by 2 giant scorpions, was open about the fact that I believed in them and prayed to them, used expressions like 'Scorpion Gods only know...' etc. most people would at best take that as a joke, at worst ask me if I'd been taking some kind of narcotic.

But what makes my Scorpion Gods different from God, Allah, Yahweh or whoever?

Nothing more than the fact that many people believe in them, therefore it is considered normal.

Discuss?


i see where your coming from but there is a bit more to religions than just belief - there are genrally a few texts etc and various (supposed) eye witness accounts that have been recorded.

but i see where your coming from ;)

[Revolvr]

I'm not the first person to ask this. But anyway.

If I believed that the world was ruled by 2 giant scorpions, was open about the fact that I believed in them and prayed to them, used expressions like 'Scorpion Gods only know...' etc. most people would at best take that as a joke, at worst ask me if I'd been taking some kind of narcotic.

But what makes my Scorpion Gods different from God, Allah, Yahweh or whoever?

Nothing more than the fact that many people believe in them, therefore it is considered normal.

Discuss?

There is a rather large book that contains thousands of years of writings detailing the development of Man's relationship with God. Giant scorpions don't have that.

There are eyewitness accounts of Jesus and the resurrection. People were murdered for what they saw and believed. Giant scorpions don't have that either.

[Cris]

Revolvr,

There is a rather large book that contains thousands of years of writings detailing the development of Man's relationship with God. Giant scorpions don't have that.Almost correct. That book has lots of stories about an alleged god and not about GSs.

There are eyewitness accounts of Jesus and the resurrection. Well unfortunately none of those stories can be verified.

People were murdered for what they saw and believed.Makes for a great mythology that our poor GSs dont have.

[SnakeLord]

There is a rather large book that contains thousands of years of writings detailing the development of Man's relationship with God. Giant scorpions don't have that.

Purely out of interest, giant scorpion men appeared in the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates that bible of yours by over one and a half thousand years.

There are eyewitness accounts of Jesus and the resurrection

If you type in "abducted by aliens" in google you get around 1,070,000 hits. There are literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people that would claim they were abducted by aliens and anal probed. What is your point?

People were murdered for what they saw and believed.

People still are. There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers that actually believe and are willing to die for things that many of us find completely worthless. It does not equate to the existence of gods.

[BlueMoose]

Purely out of interest, giant scorpion men appeared in the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates that bible of yours by over one and a half thousand years.
-This dates in the Age of Gemini ~ twins ~two (scorpion):cool:

If you type in "abducted by aliens" in google you get around 1,070,000 hits. There are literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people that would claim they were abducted by aliens and anal probed. What is your point?

:roflmao:

People still are. There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers that actually believe and are willing to die for things that many of us find completely worthless. It does not equate to the existence of gods.
-Sad but true.

[Medicine*Woman]

There is a rather large book that contains thousands of years of writings detailing the development of Man's relationship with God. Giant scorpions don't have that.
*************
M*W: Neither does that large book contain anything factual.

There are eyewitness accounts of Jesus and the resurrection. People were murdered for what they saw and believed. Giant scorpions don't have that either.
*************
M*W: Sorry, but no. That's all myth. No one actually saw anything. That was the lies that were told in the large book.

[C1ay]

There are eyewitness accounts of Jesus and the resurrection.

Not exactly. It would be more correct to say that there are hearsay writings of alleged eye witnesses of Jesus and the resurrection, none of which are credible evidence of anything.

[Revolvr]

Well unfortunately none of those stories can be verified.

Makes for a great mythology that our poor GSs dont have.

Indeed, believe me I understand you believe it is all mythology. If any of the New Testament were true, your faith would collapse like a sneeze on a house of cards.

So just what kind of verification do you need? What is enough? Does everything you believe need to be verified? Are you sure your mother is your mother? Have you verified it?

And while you are thinking of what verification would be sufficient, let me ask you: what does the following paragraph describe? Something rather terrible is happening to someone. Can you tell me what it is?

My strength drains away like water; all my bones are dislocated; my heart is like wax; it melts away inside me. The roof of my mouth is as dry as a piece of pottery; my tongue sticks to my gums. You set me in the dust of death. Yes, wild dogs surround me — a gang of evil men crowd around me; like a lion they pin my hands and feet. I can count all my bones; my enemies are gloating over me in triumph. They are dividing up my clothes among themselves; they are rolling dice for my garments.

[lightgigantic]

lg,

No. It is an undeniable statement of fact.

FACT - something that is actual.
have you actually examined all religions and verified that they don't have any facts - or do you believe that they don't and have never really bothered?

FACT - no religion in the history of mankind has been able demonstrate that any of its claims are based on actuallity.
once again, cite your references or back down from making absolute negative claims

Are any of my statements falsifiable? Yes - it takes just one person to show that a religious claim is actual.
Why is it that your statement is exempt from this standard of fact?
If you cannot show any reference that all religions from all periods of history were not based on fact, what does that make you?
This is called critical reflexivity
This is symptomatic of absolute negative statements


In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. ~Stephen J. Gould
Did you notice how his statement is not a negative absolute?

[lightgigantic]

Maybe you could back track to the question, work out what it is actually asking and then answer it relevantly.



Ok so... yet again: how do those systems actually show that some god entity exists?
has the question officially drifted off why the worship of god is not on par with the worship of two scorpions?



Indeed. My question wasn't rhetorical however. Waiting for the answer.
if you are an atheist pretending to believe in a leprechaun on the strength of the book of lenny, it certainly is rhetorical
:D

[TW Scott]

lg,

No. It is an undeniable statement of fact.

FACT - something that is actual.

FACT - no religion in the history of mankind has been able demonstrate that any of its claims are based on actuallity.

Are any of my statements falsifiable? Yes - it takes just one person to show that a religious claim is actual.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. ~Stephen J. Gould

Religious Claim: There was a King David and King Solomon.
Reality: There was a King David and King Solomon.

Religious Claim: That a man laying with a women begets a child.
Reality: Men and Women having sex does make babies.

There is two claims right there. Sure they aren;t the big beliefs in any religion, but you did not stipulate that they major beliefs, just beliefs. So shut up already.

[lightgigantic]

Yup - there are obvious reasons why people worship God. That doesn't make God real.

As Snakelord keeps pointing out, it's not a question of those people's morals, it's a question of why it is more rational to believe in one hypothetical entity than another.
As far as I am aware, I never used the words "morals" by themselves

What I did say was "enduring social, moral and philosophical systems"

if a culture (say a culture of devotion to god) can produce valuable things (like the enduring things mentioned above) and if a culture (say a culture of devotion to two scorpions) can not produce a single thing, I would hesitate to say that the value behind them is ultimately the same and any differences is simply a numbers game.
If you don't believe me, just try and indicate something like the worship of two scorpions (or lenny the leprechaun if you pelase) that has produced anything enduring (the only thing I see with lenny is activity books for kids on st patricks day)

[USS Exeter]

i see where your coming from but there is a bit more to religions than just belief - there are genrally a few texts etc and various (supposed) eye witness accounts that have been recorded.

but i see where your coming from ;)

Mohammed, Jesus, and Sidharda (Buddha) did exist in reality, but has the "god" been proven?

[lightgigantic]

Mohammed, Jesus, and Sidharda (Buddha) did exist in reality, but has the "god" been proven?
if a person is outside of the practice of their instructions (or if their instructions have been corrupted or commonly habituated to be followed badly), you wouldn't expect it to be proven to such persons anymore than someone outside of the proper practice of physics can have an electron proved to them

[Myles]

Can you write that in English and I'll respond ? Hint: you can remove half the words.

[SnakeLord]

has the question officially drifted off why the worship of god is not on par with the worship of two scorpions?


A rather pathetic way to avoid answering a question - one that was ultimately asked right at the start of this thread. While you clearly didn't understand what was being asked, you have no real excuse given that it has since been explained to you.

Observe if you will:

"..it's not a question of those people's morals, it's a question of why it is more rational to believe in one hypothetical entity than another."

Your answer, although it wasn't what was asked, involved moral and social systems. I have since asked you quite a few times what moral or social systems have to do with the actual belief and the rationality or irrationality of it. These scorpion god worshippers might be very moral indeed, it's not an argument to the rationality of their belief in that scorpion god.

Get a clue.

(the only thing I see with lenny is activity books for kids on st patricks day)

The only thing I see with Vishnu etc are images of ugly blue people. You only see what you see because you're not looking further. Why would you honestly expect to see more or indeed even understand it given that you're unqualified?

I do find it intriguing how you consistently adopt double standards. It's really quite telling.

if you are an atheist pretending to believe in a leprechaun on the strength of the book of lenny, it certainly is rhetorical


At least this time you added the 'if' instead of smply making bold claims. Needless to say I am not pretending.

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

(the only thing I see with lenny is activity books for kids on st patricks day)
”
The only thing I see with Vishnu etc are images of ugly blue people. You only see what you see because you're not looking further. Why would you honestly expect to see more or indeed even understand it given that you're unqualified?

I do find it intriguing how you consistently adopt double standards. It's really quite telling.
at least with vishnu one can easily and objectively indicate real temples, real scriptures, real commentaries on those scriptures, real philosophical conclusions drawn from those conclusions, real social and moral systems drawn up as a result of those conclusions etc etc
with lenny, all you have to go with is kids activities on st. Patricks day
:shrug:

“
if you are an atheist pretending to believe in a leprechaun on the strength of the book of lenny, it certainly is rhetorical
”
At least this time you added the 'if' instead of smply making bold claims. Needless to say I am not pretending.
Then I guess you face the difficulty of any person who is using sciforums as a medium for presenting new claims (everyone will just tar you with BS)- better that you bear your claims on the world at large and get back to us when your claims can be indicated as easily and objectively as vishnu
;)

[SnakeLord]

at least with vishnu one can easily and objectively indicate real temples, real scriptures, real commentaries on those scriptures, real philosophical conclusions drawn from those conclusions, real social and moral systems drawn up as a result of those conclusions etc etc


Alas of course 'real' temples, texts, discussions of texts, conclusions based upon discussions of those texts, moral systems and social systems do not have bearing to the existence of a certain entity, (which you continually fail to grasp).

Scientology has 'real' temples, texts, discussions of texts, conclusions based on discussion of those texts, moral systems and social systems and yet I'm sure you would be on the list of people stating that belief in the great Xenu or the evil Makabians is an irrational one. And yes, that's even though I'm sure you would also give the stated aim of Scientology due respect:

"A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology"

So, with regards to Lenny. Whether there are many followers that erect temples, discuss texts, or draw up moral and social systems is entirely irrelevant to the claimed existence of Lenny.

Basically you are now making absolute statements of denial to something on the basis that you have not perceived it and are not aware of existing texts, followers or 'temples' - which was my point.

Then I guess you face the difficulty of any person who is using sciforums as a medium for presenting new claims

No, I shall merely take the lg stance and tell them they're unqualified so they can't say shit. The only time they can ever complain is when.. amusingly enough.. they have direct perception of this entity I claim exists.

That has been your whole argument in the time you have been here. You of all people have to appreciate it.

claims can be indicated as easily and objectively as vishnu

There is your continual error once more. vishnu, (no capitals for your god? I am surprised), cannot be indicated easily or objectively. What you can indicate easily is that people believe in such an entity and make temples, write texts and discuss issues relating to their belief in that entity.

[Myles]

L.G.

Please consider the following!

Negarive absolutes conjoined with positive indications that one is operating outside the limits , corrupted or otherwise, of the scope of one's natural inclination, having regard to the fact that one may have a natural disposition to distort one's reality without affecting absolute reality which lies in the province of the ethereal yesness of the all, may indicate, without predjudice to that which is known a priori, that some things can be shown to be elemental by their very nature ,which permits of no distortion of the inner reality of that elemental nature which lies at the centre of and speaks for all phenomena sub specie aeternis which may be known by a finite mind which has divested itself of every trace of " I-ness" in consequence of which it communes in realms unknown to those who cling to a material identity whatsoever form it may take in the ultimate scheme of things material and spiritual. That is true knowledge.

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“
at least with vishnu one can easily and objectively indicate real temples, real scriptures, real commentaries on those scriptures, real philosophical conclusions drawn from those conclusions, real social and moral systems drawn up as a result of those conclusions etc etc
”
Alas of course 'real' temples, texts, discussions of texts, conclusions based upon discussions of those texts, moral systems and social systems do not have bearing to the existence of a certain entity, (which you continually fail to grasp).
it does however establish it as something distinct from lenny the leprechaunism

Scientology has 'real' temples, texts, discussions of texts, conclusions based on discussion of those texts, moral systems and social systems and yet I'm sure you would be on the list of people stating that belief in the great Xenu or the evil Makabians is an irrational one. And yes, that's even though I'm sure you would also give the stated aim of Scientology due respect:

"A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology"
what do you, as a lenny the leprechaunist, care for scientology?
(or are you, as a cynical atheist, trying to replace one rhetorical argument for another?)
:D


So, with regards to Lenny. Whether there are many followers that erect temples, discuss texts, or draw up moral and social systems is entirely irrelevant to the claimed existence of Lenny.

Basically you are now making absolute statements of denial to something on the basis that you have not perceived it and are not aware of existing texts, followers or 'temples' - which was my point.

actually I would argue that Scientology has a philosophy, albeit not a very technical one (for instance you don't see any great philosophical commentaries on the texts unique to scientology). Due to the weakness of its philosophy, it would be very difficult to describe any social or moral systems that might result from it as enduring.
It seems that the only people interested in scientology texts are other scientologists.
For instance I doubt you could find an array of quotes from sources as diverse as this of persons stating their appreciation of scientology

-Annie Besant
-Albert Einstein
-Mahatma Gandhi
-Dr.Albert Schweizer
- Carl Jung
-Herman Hesse
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
-Rudolph Steiner
-Aldous Huxley

you can however find them appreciating the philosophical contributions (http://www.geocities.com/dnivnd/) of the bhagavad-gita.
(and it doesn't seem practical to categorize them as hindus)

“
Then I guess you face the difficulty of any person who is using sciforums as a medium for presenting new claims
”
No, I shall merely take the lg stance and tell them they're unqualified so they can't say shit. The only time they can ever complain is when.. amusingly enough.. they have direct perception of this entity I claim exists.
I haven't made any absolute statements regarding lenny
I am just pointing out that for as long as the moral, philosophical and social systems of lenny are not even existent (what to speak of enduring) I am not interested, and neither is any other person of at least moderate discrimination.
And as a further point, sciforums is probably not the best medium for trying to establish a new idea as possessive of these things

That has been your whole argument in the time you have been here. You of all people have to appreciate it.
the difference is that I am arguing in reference to pre-existing ideas
my argument doesn't rest solely on my hearsay

“
claims can be indicated as easily and objectively as vishnu
”
There is your continual error once more. vishnu, (no capitals for your god? I am surprised),
its ok
we're only communicating in a discussion forum after all
;)

cannot be indicated easily or objectively. What you can indicate easily is that people believe in such an entity and make temples, write texts and discuss issues relating to their belief in that entity.
by objectively, I mean that vishnu exists as a real object of moral, social and philosophical investigation
I state this to distinguish it from lenny the leprechaun, since he seems to only serve as a real object for the performance of children's activities on St. Patricks day
;)

[SnakeLord]

it does however establish it as something distinct from lenny the leprechaunism

Other than it's more commonly heard of and has more believers, no. And while I will grant it those two things they are in actuality completely irrelevant to the point. The point being:

"Alas of course 'real' temples, texts, discussions of texts, conclusions based upon discussions of those texts, moral systems and social systems do not have bearing to the existence of a certain entity, (which you continually fail to grasp)"

If you can establish that the belief in the claimed entity is more rational than belief in Lenny or scorpion gods for that matter then we could actually progress. Alas regardless to how many times it is stated you don't seem to be able to understand what is being asked.

No lg, you cannot say belief in a certain entity is more rational than the other because it has moral/social systems and more mentions on paper. I see what your new tactic is, I'll point out the worthlessness of it in a moment.

what do you, as a lenny the leprechaunist, care for scientology?

I would have thought the point was obvious and really doesn't warrant such a pointless and honestly quite childish question. Read it again and get back to me if you can possibly muster something a little more mature.

For instance I doubt you could find an array of quotes from sources as diverse as this of persons stating their appreciation of scientology

-Annie Besant
-Albert Einstein....

An appeal to prestige. Surely you have progressed beyond such nonsense? However, just for you I shall add it to the list of lg fallacies and irrelevancies:

"Whether there are many followers that erect temples, discuss texts, or draw up moral and social systems [or whether famous people like the sound of it] does not have any bearing on the existence of a certain entity, be it Lenny or vishnu".

the difference is that I am arguing in reference to pre-existing ideas
my argument doesn't rest solely on my hearsay

Sure, it rests solely on someone elses hearsay.

its ok
we're only communicating in a discussion forum after all

Sure, I just find it quite interesting that you do not use a capital when writing the name of one of your gods but do use a capital when speaking of St Patrick and of course with that list of "real" people that you just mentioned. Seems Herman Hesse gets more respect than your own god. I can't say I care too much, I just find it interesting.

I state this to distinguish it from lenny the leprechaun, since he seems to only serve as a real object for the performance of children's activities on St. Patricks day

To think that this statement encompasses the history etc of leprechauns is extraordinarily naive. Of course when one is unwilling to be educated, (high school dropout), it is to be expected.

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“
it does however establish it as something distinct from lenny the leprechaunism
”
Other than it's more commonly heard of and has more believers, no. And while I will grant it those two things they are in actuality completely irrelevant to the point. The point being:

"Alas of course 'real' temples, texts, discussions of texts, conclusions based upon discussions of those texts, moral systems and social systems do not have bearing to the existence of a certain entity, (which you continually fail to grasp)"

If you can establish that the belief in the claimed entity is more rational than belief in Lenny or scorpion gods for that matter then we could actually progress. Alas regardless to how many times it is stated you don't seem to be able to understand what is being asked.

No lg, you cannot say belief in a certain entity is more rational than the other because it has moral/social systems and more mentions on paper. I see what your new tactic is, I'll point out the worthlessness of it in a moment.
depends whether you think things like ethics and philosophy have value

“
what do you, as a lenny the leprechaunist, care for scientology?
”
I would have thought the point was obvious and really doesn't warrant such a pointless and honestly quite childish question.
that was my initial reaction to your rhetorical question
;)


“
For instance I doubt you could find an array of quotes from sources as diverse as this of persons stating their appreciation of scientology

-Annie Besant
-Albert Einstein....
”
An appeal to prestige. Surely you have progressed beyond such nonsense? However, just for you I shall add it to the list of lg fallacies and irrelevancies:

"Whether there are many followers that erect temples, discuss texts, or draw up moral and social systems [or whether famous people like the sound of it] does not have any bearing on the existence of a certain entity, be it Lenny or vishnu".
it does however distinguish an existent and enduring philosophy from a nonexistent (aka lennyism) or less enduring philosophy (scientology)

“
its ok
we're only communicating in a discussion forum after all
”
Sure, I just find it quite interesting that you do not use a capital when writing the name of one of your gods but do use a capital when speaking of St Patrick and of course with that list of "real" people that you just mentioned. Seems Herman Hesse gets more respect than your own god. I can't say I care too much, I just find it interesting.
yes
fascinating
:rolleyes:
“
I state this to distinguish it from lenny the leprechaun, since he seems to only serve as a real object for the performance of children's activities on St. Patricks day
”
To think that this statement encompasses the history etc of leprechauns is extraordinarily naive. Of course when one is unwilling to be educated, (high school dropout), it is to be expected.
if you have nothing objective to indicate except your hearsay, sciforums cannot help you
;)

[Cris]

TW,

Religious Claim: There was a King David and King Solomon.
Reality: There was a King David and King Solomon.

Religious Claim: That a man laying with a women begets a child.
Reality: Men and Women having sex does make babies.

There is two claims right there. Sure they aren;t the big beliefs in any religion, but you did not stipulate that they major beliefs, just beliefs. So shut up already.Please don't be so naive - the issues are the basis for beliefs concerning the existence of gods and souls, e.g. supernatural components.

There is good reason why religions are also called faiths - the basis of religious beliefs is faith (belief despite the absence of facts). I.e. religions are based on faith not facts.

[Cris]

Revolvr,

Indeed, believe me I understand you believe it is all mythology. Not quite. We just don't have any independent, reliable or verifiable historical support for Christian claims.

If any of the New Testament were true, your faith would collapse like a sneeze on a house of cards.Doesn't your statement confirm that you know of no way to show the claims are true, otherwise the assertion would not need to be made. I have no faith here to collapse, what I see is Christians unable to prove what they claim.

So just what kind of verification do you need? What is enough? Does everything you believe need to be verified? Are you sure your mother is your mother? Have you verified it?Whether she is not is irelevant, however, if Christainity were true then it would have signficant consequences for all of mankind. It is not too much to ask those who make such incredible claims to show they are true and not mythological.

[TW Scott]

TW,

Please don't be so naive - the issues are the basis for beliefs concerning the existence of gods and souls, e.g. supernatural components.

There is good reason why religions are also called faiths - the basis of religious beliefs is faith (belief despite the absence of facts). I.e. religions are based on faith not facts.

Hey Chris,

You were the moron that claimed that nothing a religion clams is fact. I gave you some facts. I could give you countless more.

Now it doesn't matter if I can prove there is a God. You simply can't claim that you know God doesn't exist. First of all you have less proof than I do. I, at least, have anecdoctal evidence to God's presence. Sure, in the face of solid facts that does not mean much, but you have no solid fact to point to the absence of God.

Now you can be an ass about this or you can admit your original statement wasn't worth the electricity used to power my monitor so I could read it. From there you might start being able to have a credible argument.