| ToraTiger said:
1. Well firstly, who exactly has the rights to verify something as truth? The Government says Bin Laden was killed in a night raid and tossed into the ocean. Most people don't exactly believe that and it's most likely a fabrication. But his death is accounted as a truth. (See Wikipedia). 2. Also don't you guys think God is a falsity, and most people think God's a truth? Doesn't that right there form a contradicting ideal? And by majority rules logic, you guys would be wrong right away, as even scientists have to reach a consensus to validate their findings. 3. No one has to believe anything. That's up to them entirely. 4. I never said anything about the values of every culture's God as being true, only that God is. Because such things as a bird God (Ra), has correlation with an earthly entity. He's based off of an eagle with a human body. Earthly concepts. For example, when man thought up BigFoot he imagined a man-ape hybrid. When he thought of Unicorns, he added a horn to a horse. Just like, Aliens, ghosts, Pokemons, ect. This also goes for evolution, man deducted that apes are the closest an animal gets to a human and such the basis for all evolution was formed. 5. Man doesn't possess the innate ability to establish something from nothing. Could we have thought of something like a tree if we were all blind and had no senses to analyze it? The only way someone could think of something as abstract as a invisible force that in which we all have to yield to would be by accident. But there must have been a lot of accidents then, since most civilizations believed in God. 6. I'd like to know where in my previous posts did I ever say the Christian God was real. And if you thought I was a Christian, then that's a misconception on your part. if someone can truly answer how and why man created such an abstract concept such as yielding to an unknown force that has zero correlation with the rest of the World, and still today believes in it, then I'd love to hear it. 7. Also, Philosophy is more of a subjective matter than Science. Not even this field can answer why, though it attempts to. Many people will have different answers, so either all of them are right or all of them are wrong. Because we can't determine the intentions of our ancestors when they would respond to urges and moral codes, a definitive unanimity would not be possible to incur. Trying to disprove Religion with philosophy or answer ethics with it will never happen, as this field is mostly based on individual opinions on how these system(s) work. And as for your third point, I'd suggest you go back to the 'lab' and write a better reason for it than that. Then again, you sound pretty confident in it and if you really believe in that reasoning, I think I'm severely wasting my time here. 8. Lions are social and so are fish, but are their moral codes on line with ours? As I said before, the aims of these people will never be completely clear to us, as we have no knowledge of what went through their minds when they would reject murder, theft, lies, ect and approve of slavery and other things. I said most all cultures had the same basis for ethics, not that all are the same. 9. Considering all people believe what they see, and they use that to determine how things work. They'd determine that the clouds made thunderstorms, as such storms only exist with clouds present. Gods like Zeus was more of a reason for it, not how it came to be, seeing as many archaic Gods are based off of several concepts, many of which are familiar to just about anyone, like love, war, celebration, ect. It seems like a step backwards to believe in God just because of that. 10, Also, we can't ascertain as to the intentions of these ancients so we'll never know, why Zeus or Ra were initially created. That is simply the thinking of someone raised into a society were principles are already established. 11. Curiosity would have been a better answer. God Is probably the only completely abstract thing that came into existence, and that alone is enough reason for most people to follow it, though it's not exactly enough for others. Like Fireforgey has stated, certain evidence can be subjective to some people and not for others. Some people say the contents of the Bible is more than enough reason for them to believe, regardless of it's origins or who actually wrote it. This is the same for Muslims, Jews and many other religions. 12. As for that last thing, I clearly said "Not believing is also a belief." There is a difference. Don't twist words. It doesn't help your argument. |
Are you a Christian or not? If not, then you should know my conversation with Darev was about belief in the Christian God, not belief in God in general. Also, this entire thread was about the Christian God. If you believe in some nameless, non-man-made God, then I have nothing against you. I still think such a belief is flawed but it's not worth having a debate over; the debate would be way to complex and abstract over something which has no implications on the real world.
But I still feel the need to respond to your post because much of what you've said is wrong. I've broken up your post to allow for easier responses to each point I feel needs to be responded to.
1. It doesn’t matter who verifies something as truth. That wasn’t my point. I was responding to what you wrote here: “If neither can be proved wrong, they are, in their own virtue, a gospel truth.” This is what you said, but it’s false. Just because something cannot be proved wrong, that doesn’t mean it’s true.
2. Huh? No. The majority doesn’t determine what’s true about our universe; neither does the consensus of scientists. Our beliefs have nothing to do with what’s true about the universe.
3. Of course no one has to believe anything. I’m not saying they do. I’m just saying certain beliefs are less justified than others.
4. I do not understand your argument here. You’re saying just because something has a correlation with an earthly entity, then its true? So if I made up something right now, but made it correlate with an earthy entity, it would be true?
5. I’ve already explained that people wanted to make sense of the world and they believed that a conscious mind must be controlling everything. And that conscious mind is God. You can say instead of my explanation it was curiosity; I really don’t care what explanation you use.
6. See above.
7. I never tried to disprove religion. I’ve said certain claims in certain religions are unjustified.
8. Lions and fish lack the cognitive capacity to form societies and to understand the benefits of working together; but people do. Also, lions do have some rudimentary sense of morality (depending on your definition of morality). For example, a lion may use its energy and time to go get food for its cub. Why would a lion “waste” its energy when it will get nothing in return? Why not just eat the cub for easy food? The reason is because even lions have very basic morality (depending on your definition of morality) embedded in their instincts. If they didn’t have this instincts, then the lion species would have died out.
9. What exactly are you saying here? Your sentence structure is difficult to understand.
10. Obviously we cannot know for certain what they thought. That doesn’t mean we cannot speculate on what they likely believed.
11. Curiosity or explanation of the unknown. I really don’t care how you would explain why people created religions.
12. Huh? Yeah, you said “Not believing is also belief.” Exactly, but this is false. Not believing is not a belief. I explained this earlier.
