What good does religion offer the world today?

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

First, on behalf of the US I plead innocent to that ludicrous accusation.

Second, I think it was pretty obvious that my post was on topic, which means that I was specifically addressing the questions "is there a God" and "is there an afterlife waiting for us when we die".

You may want to always change the subject to these untrue allegations against America, but that doesn't mean you should read posts about unrelated topics as if they are intended to address your own pet topic.

And just to reiterate, I don't have any trouble reading and responding to the invisible messages when a new page starts.

Obviously since the first post was from me, I already knew what it said, but as you will be able to see when these posts become visible, I managed to reply directly to that post even when it was still invisible.

Just showing off a bit. Mr. Green

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Yea Oralloy, you made a lot of logical points. but when you walk out on that plank consider one could also consider, maybe god is really a Twinkie or a cupcake?

Perhaps God is a person on the bus, will you fall down now and worship at their feet?

Or maybe god is invisible, something never testable so one can make unfounded claims that can not ever be substantiated. Maybe God wrote a book that is full of draconian laws that people in power can selectively enforce against those of their own choosing?

Perhaps God is evil and delights in misfortune?

Compare those questions to these:

I wonder how many atoms make up a hydrogen molecule?

Is lemon juice acidic or basic?

What is the average temperature of the earth?

How many bones make up a complete skeleton of a tyrannosaurus rex?

How many jelly beans are in this jar?

Consider this difference in rational speculation...

1 Reply

@TheCobbler,

Perhaps we are in agreement?

My point was that we have no way of determining if God exists or what his or her nature is. It appears that this is your point as well.

If we have no way of knowing what awaits us all upon death, then all we can do is hope against hope that the outcome will be favorable.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

Yup. To repeat myself.

But science doesn't sit on its hands for multiple centuries believing in myths.

Religion and a belief in dog is all myths. Why would he have shown his hand so many times back in the mists, but never in modern day?

So your whole reason for rejecting the 'God hypothesis' is based on the fact that dear old camlok didn't get his own personal miracle?

If you add up every miracle in the bible (or any other holy book) and spread them over all of human history and population, it would be clear that only a tiny fraction of people were ever exposed to one.

OTOH, there is no lack of stories today of people who will swear they have experienced one. I can't prove they were or were not actual miracles, but I'm not going to call them liars.

Personally, I don't give a **** about miracles. They would be nothing more than cheap tricks for a God capable of creating the universe we live in. But an idea or a reason for this existence is something I'd give my life for if that's what the price was.

You can keep looking for it at the bottom of a test tube if you like, but I'm guessing you won't find it there. Or maybe you're not even looking

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

So your whole reason for rejecting the 'God hypothesis' is based on the fact that dear old camlok didn't get his own personal miracle?

What a terribly specious conclusion, Leadfoot. For which you have no proof.

1 Reply

@camlok,

I'm just following the evidence that you post here. I'm sure it's not complete.

What else you got?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

You have clearly illustrated that evidence means nothing to you when you fled other discussions.

There's no reason to list proofs against the existence of dog, when there is no proof for that existence.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

You have clearly illustrated that evidence means nothing to you when you fled other discussions.

I have no idea what the **** you are talking about

1 Reply

@oralloy,

How many gods do you think men have created?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Then deal with what you are able.

There's no reason to list proofs against the existence of dog, when there is no proof for the existence of dog.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

there is no proof for the existence of dog.

Aside from personal experience, you're right about that. And what a trick it is to create all this and leave behind as little trace of your doings as possible. Pretty awesome thing to pull off. But even dog couldn't quite cover every trace of what he did. How can you create sentient beings and keep then from sooner or later, seeing that there was a beginning.
OTOH, there was a guy who claimed to be the Son of dog and told a pretty convincing story if you can figure it out.

I'm a sucker for good stories and puzzles

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

And what a trick it is to create all this and leave behind as little trace of your doings as possible. Pretty awesome thing to pull off. But even dog couldn't quite cover every trace of what he did. How can you create sentient beings and keep then from seeing that there was a beginning.
OTOH, there was a guy who claimed to be the Son of dog and told a pretty convincing story if you can figure it out.

Clutching and grasping at the straw.

2 Replies

@camlok,

Quote:

Clutching and grasping at the straw.

Kind of like the physicists desperately trying to refute fine tuning with multiverses

1 Reply

@camlok,

BTW, who is it following you around thumbing down your posts? It ain't me babe

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

All the open-minded, mostly the "I love free speech and I'll protect it to my dying breath Americans.

And then there are the folks from the "liberal" wing who seem to be engaging in this same sort of incredibly childish behavior.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Kind of like the physicists desperately trying to refute fine tuning with multiverses

By "fine tuning" you're referring to ID, right?

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Their fine tuning only makes their position more conflicted. It's comical to watch. They're scratching at contradictions.
Camlock sees it as childish behavior. I wonder if he knows anything about ad hominems.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Their fine tuning only makes their position more conflicted. It's comical to watch. They're scratching at contradictions.

Yes, it is comical.

That's the world you all live in, CI, so why does it bother you so much to see others do it?

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Leadfoot wrote:
"Kind of like the physicists desperately trying to refute fine tuning with multiverses"

By "fine tuning" you're referring to ID, right?

Now why would a physicist feel the need to refute ID? They consider ID not worth consideration, don't they?

Why would InfraBlue feel a need to conflate fine tuning and ID?

It was the physicists who revealed fine tuning, not the advocates of ID. Physicists are just annoyed that their discoveries appear to support ID and therefore feel the need to make fine tuning seem 'not so weird'. So - multiverses to the rescue. If there are an infinite number of universes, fine tuning can be explained as an accidental event.

If this weirdly fine tuned series of events happened only once, it looks 'fishy'. Like rolling the dice a hundred times and getting 7 every time on your first try. People start to wonder if someone loaded the dice.

But of course there is no evidence of other universes, so physicists take it on faith that there are others. Kind of like religion.

I am of course stereotyping physicists. They just represent the mantra of methodological naturalism here.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Why would InfraBlue feel a need to conflate fine tuning and ID?

Because InfraBlue was confirming that Leadfoot was referring to ID.

1 Reply

What good does religion offer the world today?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know