The insanity of religion

2seaoat wrote:People with strong arguments are generally able to directly respond rather than fabricate strawmen and then attack those.

That is the current hiding place for god.  In time, I suspect we won't need god for that explanation either.

I have directly responded.  There is no need for any strawman, that was your choice with the Spahgetti God.  However, again you make a fatal flaw in logic.  You assume that the universe, nature, math, and science can be realized by man in its complete truth.....again a fools errand.

boards of FL wrote:I ridicule those who believe because the doctrines are so obviously false.  Hypothetical scenario.  Let's say that you have a son who is in first grade and it's report card day.  Let's say your son comes home with a sheet of notebook paper that reads: "This isz Matt's (your son's name is Matt) reporte kard!  Matt's got all As and a Beee"  would you be skeptical of that document?

Let's say your dog approached you one day with a sheet of paper that read: "A kneww laww haz bin past.  No mor katz r aloud n this hous.",  would you be skeptical of that document?

Let's say you read a book written in ancient barbaric times in which women were treated as property, slavery was prevalent, punishments were swift and incredibly harsh, and the general level of knowledge at the time was very low; and let's say that the book was said to be an explanation of the creation of our universe.   The book, coincidentally, is also incredibly harsh, ignorant, and barbaric.  Women need to do what their men say or else.  Etc, etc.  Many of the claims in the book can be factually refuted today based upon our current understanding of the world because we know considerably more today than the people did in the past when the book was written.  And if you don't believe this, you will but tortured in a pit of fire forever.  Wouldn't you be skeptical of that document?   What if there were thousands of these books, all making equally extraordinary claims and all being incompatible with the rest?   Wouldn't that make you even more skeptical?

boards of FL wrote:I have made no assumption that we have discovered everything about math, science, and nature.  In fact, I am certain that we have not.  We haven't even scratched the surface.  I am the one who is comfortable not knowing and conceding that our knowledge - as developed as it has become - is still incredibly limited.  You are the one who invents a place holder for not knowing.  The religious claim to know how the universe came to be.  I, on the other hand, do not. You're getting yourself and I confused here.  I have a reason to investigate how our universe came to be.  You, on the other hand, do not because you already know.  God did it.  People also used to see no need in investigating why the sun rises and sets.  Bill O'Reilly sees no need to investigate the reason for the changing tides because god did it.  Ancient civilizations felt no need to investigate why storms or natural disasters happen.  God did it.  And they felt that they must therefore do whatever they could (sacrifices, pray, etc) to appease that god so that they didn't bring any more evil upon themselves.  

This is known as a "god of the gaps" argument.  You're basically saying "There are things that we don't currently know about or understand, therefore, god."   If that is the argument that you want to make, you're basically saying that god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.  God used to cause the sun to rise and set.  God used to cause the tides to go in and out.  God used to cause death.  God used to cause the changing season.  Today, god isn't really needed to explain hardly anything outside of  "What happened before the big bang?"  That is the current hiding place for god.  In time, I suspect we won't need god for that explanation either.

boards of FL wrote:Pascals wager is absolutely the worst philosophical argument for the existence of god that has ever been made.  Watch this.  There is a religion called Dragonism.  It's doctrine states that there is a 16 headed dragon called Yabtoraok.  Yabtoraok commands us to spend our entire lives learning as much about math and science as we possibly can.  If we fail to do that, Yabtoraok will torture us forever in a pit of fire.  

OK.  On one hand, I could consider this claim and then naturally write it off as complete nonsense.  On other other hand, what if it is true?  If true my skepticism will cause me to be tortured forever.  I suppose I may as well say that I believe in Yabtoraok since the possibility of being tortured for eternity far outweighs the cost of learning as much about math and science as possible.

We could apply this argument to the most asinine propositions out there.  The entire universe rests inside the eye of a clown.  If we don't spend our lives worshiping this clown, he will bring the worst imaginable evil upon us in the afterlife.  Well, may as well believe in that one as well.

And beyond that, lets assume that god does in fact exist for a second.  Do you honestly think that viewing the proposition of belief or skepticism through the lens of a self-interested wager would be considered acceptable to a god?  Come on now.

boards of FL wrote:If you had been born and raised in Kuwait, don't you think it very likely that you would subscribe to islam?  If you had been born in a particular region of the world where (insert religion) is prevalent, and if your parents were also (insert religion), don't you think it highly likely that you yourself would be (insert religion)?  Had you been born in ancient Greece, don't you think it likely that you would have worshiped Zeus?  And how unfortunate it would have been for you if you were born before the invention of christianity!  No matter what you did with your life, hell awaited you!

Isn't your current religious identification more attributable to random chance (time/era, geography, your parents) than a serious consideration of all religious claims available, and then a selection of the one that you felt seemed the most likely?

2seaoat wrote:People with strong arguments are generally able to directly respond rather than fabricate strawmen and then attack those.

Again......who is not directly responding?  Please make your strong argument about God not existing.  I am all ears, and please do not fabricate a strawman.

boards of FL wrote:I can't disprove the existence of the christian god.  I also cannot disprove the existence of the tens of thousands of other gods either.  I cannot disprove that the heavens gate cult wasn't really on to something.   I cannot disprove the idea that a copy of Seinfeld Season 7 is currently orbiting Pluto.  Certain things cannot be disproven.  That doesn't mean that they exist or are even slightly likely to exist.  I can't disprove Santa Claus.  I can't disprove the Easter Bunny.  I can't disprove the Tooth Fairy.  I can't disprove the idea that Star Wars is real, and that the movie is actually a documentary showing real people doing real things.

boards of FL wrote:I already conceded that it is impossible to prove that god does not exist.  More correctly stated, there is no evidence for the existence of god or the supernatural.  There is no good reason to believe that a supernatural god exists.  Based on what we know of the natural world and based upon the countless doctrines that exist, it is highly unlikely that any of them are correct.

Bob wrote:
I have a theory about that.  Consider a scuba diver in the ocean and he encounters a school of minnows.   Why would we not apply the same question to that scenario?  Why is there no communication between the scuba diver and the minnows?
Well it's because of course the minnows have no capacity to communicate with the scuba diver.  So communication is not even possible.
Could be exactly the same with whatever it is we're witnessing in the sky.

2seaoat wrote:You haven't responded to this:



I have directly responded to every question you have posed.

boards of FL wrote:Pascals wager is absolutely the worst philosophical argument for the existence of god that has ever been made.  Watch this.  There is a religion called Dragonism.  It's doctrine states that there is a 16 headed dragon called Yabtoraok.  Yabtoraok commands us to spend our entire lives learning as much about math and science as we possibly can.  If we fail to do that, Yabtoraok will torture us forever in a pit of fire.  

OK.  On one hand, I could consider this claim and then naturally write it off as complete nonsense.  On other other hand, what if it is true?  If true my skepticism will cause me to be tortured forever.  I suppose I may as well say that I believe in Yabtoraok since the possibility of being tortured for eternity far outweighs the cost of learning as much about math and science as possible.

We could apply this argument to the most asinine propositions out there.  The entire universe rests inside the eye of a clown.  If we don't spend our lives worshiping this clown, he will bring the worst imaginable evil upon us in the afterlife.  Well, may as well believe in that one as well.

And beyond that, lets assume that god does in fact exist for a second.  Do you honestly think that viewing the proposition of belief or skepticism through the lens of a self-interested wager would be considered acceptable to a god?  Come on now.


2seaoat, I asked you this in my last post but you didn't respond.  How did you come to be a christian?  Were you indoctrinated as a child?

2seaoat wrote:You, on the other hand, do not because you already know.

Who is not reading the posts of others.  

2seaoat wrote:I have read all of your posts. You stated that you are a christian. Therefore it is your believe that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

I did not post the above.  You cannot comprehend what I have posted and decide to make up chit like you were talking to a child.  Let me type this very slowly for you.  Matthew 6, the basis of the protestant reformation implies that there is a direct connection with God which does NOT need the hypocrites telling me what I must believe, or you telling me what Christians believe.  I know this is difficult, but there were folks who said that only the historical church(the catholic church) could speak for God, and some other folks said that is not what the Bible says.....so now all those multitude of portals have folks standing up telling me what a christian is, just like you are telling me what I believe without a scintilla of understanding higher complex thought.   You do not define Christianity anymore than the hypocrites who pray the loudest.  You and your spaghetti God, or Mormons finding ancient tablets in upstate NY, do not speak for my beliefs.  You have not read or comprehended anything I have written.   You have only raised the volume of your prayer that your religion is correct.

Salinsky wrote:

Bob's mysteries of the cosmos explained through Finding Nemo.

2seaoat wrote:So to clarify, are you saying that it is not your belief that god created the universe? Because I just attributed that belief to you and you're now telling me that I'm wrong. So, for the record, you do not belief that god created the universe?

That is not what you said.  This is what you said.

Therefore it is your believe that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

I believe you meant belief.  So you were telling me I believe in Genesis in the Bible as the truth.  I do not.  Nor have I anywhere in this thread given you any implication I believed the same.  You made it up.  Based on an assumption that as a Christian the old testament or anything written in a book is the controlling factor.  Again, the hypocrites or anything written by man, does not control the direct connection a believer has with God.   The universe, nature, math, and science has always existed and upon that truth at the apex is God.  I believe that the universe and its creation is beyond my comprehension and knowledge at this time, but it does exist within the empirically verifiable facts of my existence only to the degree I am capable of understanding the same.  I believe in a unified theory of truth within the universe, nature, math and science and the apex is God.

boards of FL wrote:

2seaoat wrote:You haven't responded to this:



I have directly responded to every question you have posed.

You haven't responded to hardly any of my posts.  You haven't responded to any of the quotes I just gave you.  All you're doing is taking one sentence out of a long post and responding to that.  

Watch.  What was your response to this?

boards of FL wrote:Pascals wager is absolutely the worst philosophical argument for the existence of god that has ever been made.  Watch this.  There is a religion called Dragonism.  It's doctrine states that there is a 16 headed dragon called Yabtoraok.  Yabtoraok commands us to spend our entire lives learning as much about math and science as we possibly can.  If we fail to do that, Yabtoraok will torture us forever in a pit of fire.  

OK.  On one hand, I could consider this claim and then naturally write it off as complete nonsense.  On other other hand, what if it is true?  If true my skepticism will cause me to be tortured forever.  I suppose I may as well say that I believe in Yabtoraok since the possibility of being tortured for eternity far outweighs the cost of learning as much about math and science as possible.

We could apply this argument to the most asinine propositions out there.  The entire universe rests inside the eye of a clown.  If we don't spend our lives worshiping this clown, he will bring the worst imaginable evil upon us in the afterlife.  Well, may as well believe in that one as well.

And beyond that, lets assume that god does in fact exist for a second.  Do you honestly think that viewing the proposition of belief or skepticism through the lens of a self-interested wager would be considered acceptable to a god?  Come on now.


2seaoat, I asked you this in my last post but you didn't respond.  How did you come to be a christian?  Were you indoctrinated as a child?

2seaoat wrote:I referenced Genesis, though isn't it your belief that god created the universe?

The question does not make any sense to me.  If you have listened at all, you would have the answer.  With my belief in God being the apex of truth and perfection, it follows that his existence is a priori acknowledgement of the Universe.

2seaoat wrote:You keep posting that I did not respond to how I believe in Matthew 6.  Go through the thread.  I concisely responded with my evolution from grade school to high school.

boards of FL wrote:Pascals wager is absolutely the worst philosophical argument for the existence of god that has ever been made.  Watch this.  There is a religion called Dragonism.  It's doctrine states that there is a 16 headed dragon called Yabtoraok.  Yabtoraok commands us to spend our entire lives learning as much about math and science as we possibly can.  If we fail to do that, Yabtoraok will torture us forever in a pit of fire.  

OK.  On one hand, I could consider this claim and then naturally write it off as complete nonsense.  On other other hand, what if it is true?  If true my skepticism will cause me to be tortured forever.  I suppose I may as well say that I believe in Yabtoraok since the possibility of being tortured for eternity far outweighs the cost of learning as much about math and science as possible.

We could apply this argument to the most asinine propositions out there.  The entire universe rests inside the eye of a clown.  If we don't spend our lives worshiping this clown, he will bring the worst imaginable evil upon us in the afterlife.  Well, may as well believe in that one as well.

And beyond that, lets assume that god does in fact exist for a second.  Do you honestly think that viewing the proposition of belief or skepticism through the lens of a self-interested wager would be considered acceptable to a god?  Come on now.


2seaoat, I asked you this in my last post but you didn't respond.  How did you come to be a christian?  Were you indoctrinated as a child?