The insanity of religion

Vikingwoman's got your number,  seaoat.  You tell all the rest of us how "scaredy cat" we are,  and yet you're even afraid to stop believing in fairy tales.  
What about all that science you champion when it comes to global warming.  Now we see you only trust science when it's to your liking to do so.  Because you obviously don't put science ahead of fairy tales.

Ok so where is your proof of it's existence? We can see bacteria under a microscope. Mere belief does not provide evidence of which you seem to think.

Bob wrote:Vikingwoman's got your number,  seaoat.  You tell all the rest of us how "scaredy cat" we are,  and yet you're even afraid to stop believing in fairy tales.  
What about all that science you champion when it comes to global warming.  Now we see you only trust science when it's to your liking to do so.  Because you obviously don't put science ahead of fairy tales.

Exactly. He talks a good game of courage but doesn't have the courage to question his beliefs.

An honest quote from a believer who was standing in the presence of Jesus:

Mark 9:24 "I do believe. Help my unbelief."

Vikingwoman's got your number, seaoat. You tell all the rest of us how "scaredy cat" we are, and yet you're even afraid to stop believing in fairy tales.
What about all that science you champion when it comes to global warming. Now we see you only trust science when it's to your liking to do so. Because you obviously don't put science ahead of fairy tales.


Ah, the weakest of minds find comfort in the concept of heaven where they will be safe and not afraid, but even weaker minds project their assumption on those who believe in God that somehow that belief is based on the fear of not getting into heaven which has been defined by those who stand a pray the loudest and believe some utopia exists because of compliance with other men's dictates. The existence of God does not presuppose heaven, nor does the non existence of the same cause fear.

I fear little, and I am at peace.

People of faith are gullible according to Boards and people of faith are not intelligent according to Vikingwoman.


Do you two feel better about your personal convictions now?

We can see bacteria under a microscope

So that is your learned response......we can see bacteria under the microscope, so therefore by that response am I correct to assume that you believe what we have not discovered does not exist?

Thus they might come to be stamped as "necessities of thought," "a priori givens," etc. The path of scientific progress is often made impassable for a long time by such errors. Therefore it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analysing long-held commonplace concepts and showing the circumstances on which their justification and usefulness depend, and how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. Thus their excessive authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, or replaced if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason.

Do you "see" just how little of the electromagnetic spectrum you can sense ?

Radio waves are flowing through you as you sit there can YOU feel, touch, taste, smell or see them ?

Seriously, though. I'll pose this question to the religious reading this thread: Do you believe in Zeus?

2seaoat, do you believe in Zeus? This is an honest question and not rhetorical in any way. Do you believe in Zeus?

No, I have very little belief in the concept of the king of Gods. It is illogical both in nature, math, and science. I believe in a unitary theory of nature, math, science and one god. I cannot disprove the existence of Zeus or the other Gods he ruled over, but physics and math and nature have an answer, not a shared answer. If God created a council of Gods led by Zeus, then within my belief system, I may not be able to verify the existence of Zeus at this time, but the possibility of his existence is certainly possible within my belief system. It just would seem redundant and counter to the rules of nature which seldom have multiple choice answers, and as Einstein said......god does not roll the dice with the universe. This presupposes certain truths beyond our capacity to sense the same, and universal truths which also with our tools we presently cannot master or perceive.

2seaoat wrote:2seaoat, do you believe in Zeus?  This is an honest question and not rhetorical in any way.  Do you believe in Zeus?

No, I have very little belief in the concept of the king of Gods.  It is illogical both in nature, math, and science.  

How is Zeus any more illogical in nature, math, and science that the christian god?  What are you looking at in those fields that jumps out at you and says "Belief in Zeus is illogical"?

My mistake, seaoat. For some reason I thought you were into the Bible.
As long as it doesn't come from books, I have no quarrel with anyone's religion.

You need to let Zeus alone Boards or he'll come sleep with your wife...you need to worship BACCHUS The Roman god of wine and orgies....he's more to your liking.

How is Zeus any more illogical in nature, math, and science that the christian god? What are you looking at in those fields that jumps out at you and says "Belief in Zeus is illogical"?




Greek Mythology starts with the proposition of no unitary truth. So 2 +2 =4 for one Greek God and another says 2+2=6, and I argue that math, science, and nature have unitary truths. I believe there is but one nexus and truth. The concept of God presupposes the apex. However, the apex may have many routes to truth.......4 x 1=4..........and so the apex may have created alternative routes to truth and God. Bob thinks that because it a route was in a book, it is incapable of finding truth. Boards believes that the existence of one portal or another is the answer to the problem or one mathematical approach is better than the other, but the truth remains unitary and unchallenged. God is the truth. My faith as a Christian that Matthew 6 has given me a portal to the truth, is not so naive as to believe that other portals to the truth may have come before, or have not yet been discovered.

Oh so you are scared of the book god. Hell I don't blame you for it. That book god is one scary son of a bitch.
But if the book is your thing, then how come you don't believe in heaven?
The book goes on and on about heaven.

Well Bob books have words and the Book says everything was spoken into existence by words so who knew words were so powerful? A book is a fine place to keep words don't you think ?

A book has relevant portions and irrelevant portions, and the ability to make distinctions is the gift of intelligence.

Yes such words as

IN THE BEGINNING GOD...

Gives you all kinds of pertinent information.....


And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

2seaoat wrote:How is Zeus any more illogical in nature, math, and science that the christian god?  What are you looking at in those fields that jumps out at you and says "Belief in Zeus is illogical"?




Greek Mythology starts with the proposition of no unitary truth.  So 2 +2 =4 for one Greek God and another says 2+2=6, and I argue that math, science, and nature have unitary truths.  I believe there is but one nexus and truth.  

I'm not following you here. See if you can dumb it down a bit. You're saying that Zeus can't logically exist because...one god does math one way and another god does math another way?

I'll tell you what. I retract the question. Let's start over. I subscribe to a monotheistic religion in which math is universal and there are unitary truths. The creation myth from my religion says that a flying spaghetti monster created the universe some time ago. This god created us all for the purpose of learning the culinary arts and eventually evolving to the point at which we can prepare high quality spaghetti. Once our spaghetti reaches a point of quality that is fit for a god such as our creator - the flying spaghetti monster - he will return to the universe from the supernatural world, take our spaghetti as his bride, and then obliterate us. Long story short, the flying spaghetti monster created us and this universe of math and unitary truth so that we could create a bride for him to share eternity with. The end.

Now, 2seaoat, do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster? If not, why not?

Now, 2seaoat, do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster? If not, why not?




Ah, very good. Again, you suppose that one portal calling God the spaghetti monster, another Christ, or another Xeno.......but you are avoiding the central concept. God is the truth. It may be true that your path through your spaghetti monster is the one and only apex of truth and is the central truth of God, or not. Your argument is as old as the ages....

Existence can hardly ever be considered an attribute, as something non-existent cannot have attributes. Therefore, making conclusions about existence of an entity based on its properties is not logically sound. In short, this argument boils down to "show me a god, and I'll show you an existing god." It is a form of circular reasoning because the existence is built into the assumptions. The flaw was first identified by Immanuel Kant.

When I go out and plant carrots in my garden and watch them grow and mature and then pluck it from the ground clean it and eat it, at any point did the carrot know I existed ?...No it didn't have the necessary senses to perceive of me, yet I was very much involved in the carrots life wasn't I ?


Christians don't see God with human eyes....

1Cor.2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.


Discerned=seen or sensed

2seaoat wrote:Now, 2seaoat, do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster? If not, why not?




Ah, very good.  Again, you suppose that one portal calling God the spaghetti monster, another Christ, or another Xeno.......but you are avoiding the central concept.  God is the truth.  It may be true that your path through your spaghetti monster is the one and only apex of truth and is the central truth of God, or not.  Your argument is as old as the ages....

Seriously, though.  Why do you not believe in the flying spaghetti monster?  What is it about this religion that makes you think to yourself "I don't believe that"?  You obviously cannot prove that the spaghetti monster does not exist, and I can obviously show you a plate of spaghetti - which is concrete evidence supporting this religion and its prophecy.  Where else would spaghetti have came from?  Why don't you believe that we are living in the end times and that our creator will soon return for his bride?

I realize this may sound silly to you, but these questions are not rhetorical.  I think you would agree that every religion - but yours - sounds completely silly, though I'd like to have an honest back and forth here on this because I want to understand why you choose your religion as opposed to the thousands of others. Were you indoctrinated?

Why do you not believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

I believe in God. If the flying spaghetti monster is god. I believe. You are making centuries old circular logic arguments which make little or no sense. You think by putting different name tags on the apex it changes the apex, or that someone who believes in one or the other portal to discover God, is foolish or superstitious. Hardly. Again, what we cannot empirically confirm does not deny the existence of the same. That there is truth in nature, science, and math, and much of that truth yet discovered supports the logical conclusion that God is the truth.

I think you would agree that every religion - but yours - sounds completely silly,

I do not agree with that statement. Many on this forum think my limitation as a Christian to Matthew 6 is not being a Christian. I just got lectured by my fundamentalist brother that the bible wants a cremated person's ashes all together. He might be right. He might be wrong. I simply mentioned that nowhere in the bible does such a reference exist. I quickly qualified that fact with a complete agreement that if he prefers my mother's ashes be in the graveyard in Birmingham, I am good with his beliefs. I have always tried to show restraint with others beliefs, and it is hard. It is the easiest and lowest form of intellectual dialogue to ridicule another's belief system. We did the same with Native Americans, and throughout history it is a central tenet in human conflict.

The problem on both sides of the debate of God's existence is the certainty of belief. I have no certainty, but faith that God exists. I am completely at peace intellectually with my belief system and can attend a Christian Church and not find fault with those who call themselves Christians who believe in things contrary to Christian doctrine, but I also want to learn as much about other portals and approaches including your spaghetti God. I love Bill Mahr. He has taken the least intellectual route for comedy, but in the end he is so right on one side of the equation, but fails to even have a cursory understanding of the other side of the equation......for like math or science, there is truth and God is truth. To point to untruths is simple, pedestrian, and does not magically bring one to the truth......much much more is required in that intellectual exercise.