Richard Dawkins Hero
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 17 Jun 15 12.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 11.25am
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 11.05am
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am
One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality. Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period. Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation. What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all? Well if God is omnipotent, God could easily look into the minds of these past generations and know whether they would have believed in him and Jesus if given the opportunity! Any deity which desired to be believed in would reveal itself to everyone, not just to a specific person, culture, race or nation. And your point seems to overlook one of the Ten Commandments "You shall have no other Gods before me". Just another example of completely contradictory and confused religious argument. Assuming such an entity was capable of such a thing, and of course to prove its existence. I suspect the idea of an all seeing, all powerful, god is more 'PR against the Arabs'. Certainly, according to some of the gnostic faiths, God was far from all powerful or all seeing, or even capable of acting on the earth. Certainly, the idea of only one true god is borrowed from Zoroastraism's influence on the development of Christianity,
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Jun 15 12.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 11.41am
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 11.25am
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 11.05am
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am
One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality. Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period. Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation. What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all? Well if God is omnipotent, God could easily look into the minds of these past generations and know whether they would have believed in him and Jesus if given the opportunity! Any deity which desired to be believed in would reveal itself to everyone, not just to a specific person, culture, race or nation. And your point seems to overlook one of the Ten Commandments "You shall have no other Gods before me". Just another example of completely contradictory and confused religious argument.
Hold on... We are oblige to respect daft beliefs. Not for Catholicism, it largely exterminated the competition over a period of about 800 years, and tolerated the 'Byzantine Heresy' after the Schism. Protestantism, was fortunate in its timing and popularity to face a similar fate as the Cathars. Its important as well to remember that there are Christian Sects in the middle east and surroundings that were never part of the rise of Christendom (and the Holy Roman Empire), that also predate Catholicism. Its only really were the West has gone that you find Protestantism and Catholicism.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Jun 15 12.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Brentmiester_General at 17 Jun 2015 11.54am
Religion, as Dawkins has stated, is in the death throes. I doubt it, the Philosopher John Grey presents a very good argument that the reality is that Christianity is in the process of being replaced by a Secular Humanism that is no more true or based in rational thought, than Christianity; that humanity will replace 'spiritual salvation' with an idea of 'technological salvation', and simply ignore the consequences of that faith, in exactly the same way people did with Christianity. Religions change with ages, new ones come and go. I think that will ever change, people will always confuse what they want, with what is known and what is likely with what they desire.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 17 Jun 15 12.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 12.36pm
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 11.25am
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 11.05am
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am
One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality. Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period. Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation. What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all? Well if God is omnipotent, God could easily look into the minds of these past generations and know whether they would have believed in him and Jesus if given the opportunity! Any deity which desired to be believed in would reveal itself to everyone, not just to a specific person, culture, race or nation. And your point seems to overlook one of the Ten Commandments "You shall have no other Gods before me". Just another example of completely contradictory and confused religious argument. Assuming such an entity was capable of such a thing, and of course to prove its existence. I suspect the idea of an all seeing, all powerful, god is more 'PR against the Arabs'. Certainly, according to some of the gnostic faiths, God was far from all powerful or all seeing, or even capable of acting on the earth. Certainly, the idea of only one true god is borrowed from Zoroastraism's influence on the development of Christianity, God is considered to be omnipotent, ie: having unlimited power (bit like the FA and judge Isobel Brownlie) so God can do whatever God likes.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Jun 15 1.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 12.47pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 12.36pm
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 11.25am
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 11.05am
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am
One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality. Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period. Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation. What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all? Well if God is omnipotent, God could easily look into the minds of these past generations and know whether they would have believed in him and Jesus if given the opportunity! Any deity which desired to be believed in would reveal itself to everyone, not just to a specific person, culture, race or nation. And your point seems to overlook one of the Ten Commandments "You shall have no other Gods before me". Just another example of completely contradictory and confused religious argument. Assuming such an entity was capable of such a thing, and of course to prove its existence. I suspect the idea of an all seeing, all powerful, god is more 'PR against the Arabs'. Certainly, according to some of the gnostic faiths, God was far from all powerful or all seeing, or even capable of acting on the earth. Certainly, the idea of only one true god is borrowed from Zoroastraism's influence on the development of Christianity, God is considered to be omnipotent, ie: having unlimited power (bit like the FA and judge Isobel Brownlie) so God can do whatever God likes. In some faiths, in others the term god is a much broader aspect. It would be erroneous to simply pick one god or patheon, as being true and then reject the possibility of the rest. After all, if Jahova can exist, surely Thor has the same possibility of existing?
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Jun 15 1.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 12.47pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 12.36pm
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 11.25am
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 11.05am
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am
One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality. Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period. Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation. What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all? Well if God is omnipotent, God could easily look into the minds of these past generations and know whether they would have believed in him and Jesus if given the opportunity! Any deity which desired to be believed in would reveal itself to everyone, not just to a specific person, culture, race or nation. And your point seems to overlook one of the Ten Commandments "You shall have no other Gods before me". Just another example of completely contradictory and confused religious argument. Assuming such an entity was capable of such a thing, and of course to prove its existence. I suspect the idea of an all seeing, all powerful, god is more 'PR against the Arabs'. Certainly, according to some of the gnostic faiths, God was far from all powerful or all seeing, or even capable of acting on the earth. Certainly, the idea of only one true god is borrowed from Zoroastraism's influence on the development of Christianity, God is considered to be omnipotent, ie: having unlimited power (bit like the FA and judge Isobel Brownlie) so God can do whatever God likes. Most of what is written about Gods, Demons, Supernatural entities, suggest that they are also bound by certain rules, and regulations. There is no really reliable basis to assume omnipotence and or omniscience belongs to Jahvova.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 17 Jun 15 1.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 1.03pm
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 12.47pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 12.36pm
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 11.25am
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 11.05am
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am
One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality. Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period. Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation. What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all? Well if God is omnipotent, God could easily look into the minds of these past generations and know whether they would have believed in him and Jesus if given the opportunity! Any deity which desired to be believed in would reveal itself to everyone, not just to a specific person, culture, race or nation. And your point seems to overlook one of the Ten Commandments "You shall have no other Gods before me". Just another example of completely contradictory and confused religious argument. Assuming such an entity was capable of such a thing, and of course to prove its existence. I suspect the idea of an all seeing, all powerful, god is more 'PR against the Arabs'. Certainly, according to some of the gnostic faiths, God was far from all powerful or all seeing, or even capable of acting on the earth. Certainly, the idea of only one true god is borrowed from Zoroastraism's influence on the development of Christianity, God is considered to be omnipotent, ie: having unlimited power (bit like the FA and judge Isobel Brownlie) so God can do whatever God likes. In some faiths, in others the term god is a much broader aspect. It would be erroneous to simply pick one god or patheon, as being true and then reject the possibility of the rest. After all, if Jahova can exist, surely Thor has the same possibility of existing? Yes, quite ok for an omnipotent God to allow the existence of Thor.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Jun 15 1.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 1.10pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 1.03pm
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 12.47pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 12.36pm
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 11.25am
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 11.05am
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am
One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality. Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period. Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation. What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all? Well if God is omnipotent, God could easily look into the minds of these past generations and know whether they would have believed in him and Jesus if given the opportunity! Any deity which desired to be believed in would reveal itself to everyone, not just to a specific person, culture, race or nation. And your point seems to overlook one of the Ten Commandments "You shall have no other Gods before me". Just another example of completely contradictory and confused religious argument. Assuming such an entity was capable of such a thing, and of course to prove its existence. I suspect the idea of an all seeing, all powerful, god is more 'PR against the Arabs'. Certainly, according to some of the gnostic faiths, God was far from all powerful or all seeing, or even capable of acting on the earth. Certainly, the idea of only one true god is borrowed from Zoroastraism's influence on the development of Christianity, God is considered to be omnipotent, ie: having unlimited power (bit like the FA and judge Isobel Brownlie) so God can do whatever God likes. In some faiths, in others the term god is a much broader aspect. It would be erroneous to simply pick one god or patheon, as being true and then reject the possibility of the rest. After all, if Jahova can exist, surely Thor has the same possibility of existing? Yes, quite ok for an omnipotent God to allow the existence of Thor. Indeed, the early Christian Church kind of thought that way.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Lyons550 Shirley 17 Jun 15 2.41pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 10.44am
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am
One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality. Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period. Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation. What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all? Or that they all tie into a greater cosmic reality, that people of ages, including this one, are attempting to relay. One should always accept the very strong likelihood that people thousands of years ago might have been very much 'filling in the gaps' and relying on their knowledge of the times and existent knowledge's / experiences. The Catholic church struggled a long time with many of these arguments, and came to a number of interesting to absurd conclusions, based on their faith, some of which were quite surprising (they saw the pagan faiths as evidence of the age of the Nephilim in genesis, for example) and the idea or purgatory and the harrowing of hell etc. We're always limited by what our 'situated knowledge's', and we will likely as not look as limited in our capacity to people in several hundred years.
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Jun 15 3.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Lyons550 at 17 Jun 2015 2.41pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 10.44am
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am
One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality. Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period. Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation. What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all? Or that they all tie into a greater cosmic reality, that people of ages, including this one, are attempting to relay. One should always accept the very strong likelihood that people thousands of years ago might have been very much 'filling in the gaps' and relying on their knowledge of the times and existent knowledge's / experiences. The Catholic church struggled a long time with many of these arguments, and came to a number of interesting to absurd conclusions, based on their faith, some of which were quite surprising (they saw the pagan faiths as evidence of the age of the Nephilim in genesis, for example) and the idea or purgatory and the harrowing of hell etc. We're always limited by what our 'situated knowledge's', and we will likely as not look as limited in our capacity to people in several hundred years.
Pending sufficient evidence, yes. At present its a no, on the basis that there is no credible evidence of extra terrestrial life, let alone visitations to earth
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 17 Jun 15 3.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 3.22pm
Quote Lyons550 at 17 Jun 2015 2.41pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 10.44am
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am
One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality. Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period. Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation. What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all? Or that they all tie into a greater cosmic reality, that people of ages, including this one, are attempting to relay. One should always accept the very strong likelihood that people thousands of years ago might have been very much 'filling in the gaps' and relying on their knowledge of the times and existent knowledge's / experiences. The Catholic church struggled a long time with many of these arguments, and came to a number of interesting to absurd conclusions, based on their faith, some of which were quite surprising (they saw the pagan faiths as evidence of the age of the Nephilim in genesis, for example) and the idea or purgatory and the harrowing of hell etc. We're always limited by what our 'situated knowledge's', and we will likely as not look as limited in our capacity to people in several hundred years.
Pending sufficient evidence, yes. At present its a no, on the basis that there is no credible evidence of extra terrestrial life, let alone visitations to earth
No evidence of extra terrestrial life but the sheer numbers of stars and planets suggest that it is highly likely.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 17 Jun 15 3.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 3.34pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 3.22pm
Quote Lyons550 at 17 Jun 2015 2.41pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 10.44am
Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am
One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality. Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period. Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation. What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all? Or that they all tie into a greater cosmic reality, that people of ages, including this one, are attempting to relay. One should always accept the very strong likelihood that people thousands of years ago might have been very much 'filling in the gaps' and relying on their knowledge of the times and existent knowledge's / experiences. The Catholic church struggled a long time with many of these arguments, and came to a number of interesting to absurd conclusions, based on their faith, some of which were quite surprising (they saw the pagan faiths as evidence of the age of the Nephilim in genesis, for example) and the idea or purgatory and the harrowing of hell etc. We're always limited by what our 'situated knowledge's', and we will likely as not look as limited in our capacity to people in several hundred years.
Pending sufficient evidence, yes. At present its a no, on the basis that there is no credible evidence of extra terrestrial life, let alone visitations to earth
No evidence of extra terrestrial life but the sheer numbers of stars and planets suggest that it is highly likely.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.