Chumly wrote:Terry wrote:Some theologies ARE more credible than others.
Please show me and qualify and quantify it.
I have seen no evidence to suggest the more popular ones today are any more credible or beneficial to the popular ones of days gone by. Show how this is the case please.
The fact that more people adhere to a religion demonstrates that it is more credible (ie believable) than ones that are losing membership. People tend to do things that benefit themselves in some way, and if they get no benefit from their religion they won't waste time and resources on it (note that benefits include intangible ones such as social approval and the good feeling some get from going to church or praying)
Quote:That in no way suggests that Greek polytheism was somehow less credible or provided fewer benefits than some religion which is at present more popular.
Most people these days accept the fact that Gods do not actually live on Mt. Olympus, fling lightning bolts around, or chase and impregnate human beings.
Quote:There is no meritable evidence whatsoever to support your contention that a god has talked to anyone. And it would have to be an incredibly weak god indeed that had to the lengths you suggest just to be heard. Why not use radio waves and do nice a Sunday show? How hard could that be for a god? Man can do it with ease.
If someone says that God spoke to them, do you automatically brand them a liar? On what basis, other than your own unsubstantiated opinion that such communication is impossible and they are delusional?
Quote:If so why would god not simply make his presence known in the state capital and get it over with? Or use radio waves as I suggested earlier. What is the big fuss?
Perhaps gods cannot generate radio waves. Perhaps they do not wish to speak to most of mankind.
Quote:I don't see why, and in fact I assert that if you look at history, theologies change with fashions and languages and migrations and wars etc. and show no correlation to any sort of credibility or correctness as per longevity.
Yes, theologies change over time, just as scientific opinion changes over time, but if scientific advances improve our understanding of the world, why wouldn't advances in religious belief likewise lead to a better understanding of deities?
Quote:You are welcome to that belief, but the same can be said for alien abductions or synchronicity or taro cards or astrology or witchcraft or talking with the dead etc. What about the possibility that at least a few of these people are accurately reporting real experiences of these things
It is possible that some people actually have been abducted by aliens or have ESP, although I have yet to see any credible evidence of it. I can wave my "magic wand" and see things happening thousands of miles away, or even on Mars! I can make my garage door raise without even touching it. I can fly anywhere in the world on a "magic carpet," hear the voices of people who died decades ago (and see them as well), learn how astrological bodies affected the development of life on earth, or reflect on the coincidences that made my life relatively easy while others suffer from misfortune. At one time automobiles, television, computers, cell phones, invisible organisms living in your body, and men walking on the moon were incredible concepts. I am reluctant to label anything "impossible" these days, although I am a skeptic and require unimpeachable proof before accepting things that appear to violate natural laws as we know them.
Quote:It may be of benefit to one as an individual, but that does not make it collectively rational as the same argument could be made for skydivers or motorcyclist or musicians and they are minus the theological platitudes.
Religion does not have to be collectively rational for individuals to choose it, although a society that wastes resources on fantasies is at a disadvantage compared to ones that don't. Please prove that religion offers no benefits to any society.
Quote:Just as rational as what may I ask?
...
If that was the case no one would ever make any choice because it is impossible to have complete information. In fact I would go as far as saying that such chioces are perhaps man's greatest achievements / downfalls.
Belief is just as rational as unbelief. Of course you can make a rational choice based on limited information. You can also rationally choose not to. What you do not seem to be getting here it that rationality is in the mind of the thinker. If a concept satisfies the internal logic of an individual, it IS rational for that person.
Quote:More like there is no way whatsoever that can know at all if anyone is right and the chances of anyone being right are negligible given the odds and my prior comments on antiquated religions having just as much merit as newer ones.
The odds of a
given theology being true are not determined by the number of theologies in existence, any more than the odds of a scientific theorem being correct are determined by the number of alternate hypotheses generated by imaginative scientists.
Quote:I suggest that anthropomorphic hubris play a massive role in how man depicts god.
Quite likely. So what?
