Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Prove the Existence of God(s)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1451-1475 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 7:16:39 PM PDT
arthurcastle says:
N. Hunt says:
arthurcastle: "Here is one hint: The Golden Rule:"
--------------------
{The golden rule is proof of agreement between religions? The implementation of the golden rule isn't exactly agreed upon in any religion, or in our secular society for that matter. ... isn't historically the job of religions to extend rights beyond the faith community. The faith community becomes a tribe with similar values. The "others" become threats.}

Agreement among religions? I don't think I ever posted that before and I don't remember trying to imply it. I just pointed the fact that the GR can be found in almost every sacred and holy writing of humanity.
About when "others" become threats sounds like some kind of political power struggle.
Just like when sweet JC was killed by the priests via the Romans or the prophet Mohammed was almost killed by his opponents and had to run from Mecca to Medina or even the great Socrates getting killed by his own people.

-I've drank what?-

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 7:21:33 PM PDT
arthurcastle says:
FisicoMexicano says:

{ "I wasn't referring to them. I was referring to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic and other religious "fairy tales"."

In that case, It depends. ... However an insane fundamentalist crackpot of a believer who calls everyone in disagreement a devil I will not respect. }

Well, I have always had the utmost respect for you from the first posting.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 7:24:05 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"What does the Golden Rule have to do with religion? Seriously then how do you explain the fact that it found in almost every one of humanity's holy and sacred writings?"

Circular reasoning.

Arthur, food, horticulture, weather, economics, animal husbandry, sex, war, birth and death also appear in almost every one of humanity's "holy and sacred writings." That does not mean that one needs a religion to practice, understand or recognize any of them. Same with the GR.

"Treat others as you would like to be treated" is common sense - very, very foundational and ancient common sense. Adding, "Oh, and yea, verily do it because a god said so" does NOT make it religious.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 7:37:19 PM PDT
"Well, I have always had the utmost respect for you from the first posting."

Well thank you. I respect you as well.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 7:56:45 PM PDT
arthurcastle says:
D. Thomas says:

(Nobody is "super qualified in religion." That would be like having a PhD in palmistry or the reading of tea leaves. )

Well ... have you ever heard of Elaine Pagels , the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University and her most famous book "The Gnostic Gospels?"

How about ... Wayne A. Meeks, the Woolsey Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Yale University and his book "The Origins of Christian Morality?"

Should I go on?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 7:57:23 PM PDT
arthurcastle says:
Well ... have you ever heard of Elaine Pagels , the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University and her most famous book "The Gnostic Gospels?"

How about ... Wayne A. Meeks, the Woolsey Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Yale University and his book "The Origins of Christian Morality?"

Should I go on?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 8:00:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2012 8:12:04 PM PDT
The examples you gave proves it is possible to be a expert in religious history (I enjoyed Elaine Pagels' book).

Being an expert in religious belief, however, is compared to tea leaves for a reason -- there is no criterion for determining truth or falsehood, so there is no way to differentiate an expert from a nut.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 8:08:05 PM PDT
arthurcastle says:
Irish Lace says:

[ "What does ... writings?"
Circular reasoning.
Arthur, food, horticulture, weather, economics, animal husbandry, sex, ... Same with the GR.

"Treat others as you would like to be treated" is common sense - very, very foundational and ancient common sense. Adding, "Oh, and yea, verily do it because a god said so" does NOT make it religious.]

Circular reasoning? Irish? Perhaps you have never been exposed to the concept that religion and science complement each other.

Have you? If so. Where?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 8:25:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2012 8:37:48 PM PDT
arthurcastle says:
N. Hunt says:
[The examples you gave proves it is possible to be a expert in religious history (I enjoyed Elaine Pagels' book).
Being an expert in religious belief, however, is compared to tea leaves for a reason -- there is no criterion for determining truth or falsehood, so there is no way to differentiate an expert from a heretic, or a nut. ]

I guess I can reasonably say that you enjoy reading books about tea leaves (The Gnostic Tea Leaves,)
so there is no way to determine that you are truthful or false and also there is no way to differentiate wether you are an expert in tea leaves, a heretic scientist or just plain nuts. {Sorry that was real funny.}

Seriously, tell me then, why at the same university where Richard Dawkins graduated from there is also a world famous theology college with famous authors too.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 8:50:09 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
Nice obfuscation, artie. Are you going to address the point or just mumble helplessly?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 11:04:57 PM PDT
Re arthurcastle, 6-26 6:21 PM: "why are you quoting somebody who is super qualified in science and not religion?" Because science can produce information, and religion cannot [1]. Theology is the only field of study in which it is impossible in principle to learn ANYTHING about the actual subject.

1. Proof is posted in the "Belief in the Christian god is absurd" forum. Search Customer Discussions for "saunderst" to find it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 11:10:30 PM PDT
Re arthurcastle, 6-26 8:08 PM: " ... the concept that religion and science complement each other." There are people who have claimed this -- but I disagree: it can be shown that no thesis involving a god can produce any information, so religion can in fact add nothing to what we can learn from science.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 11:36:10 PM PDT
CAM says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 12:42:19 AM PDT
"Available on Amazon? Can I get it for my IPad? "

Only if it's waterproof.

T Crown

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 12:52:43 AM PDT
"It was a sign from the great god of oats, not from the xtian bible god."

No Bubba, from the Quaker bible (Quaker oats). "And Abraham did verily eateth porridge from the Quaker factory each morning before prayers" Lativicus 3:15 paperback edition.

T Crown

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 1:58:16 AM PDT
Bubba says:
OH! I see. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 6:06:29 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"(Nobody is "super qualified in religion." That would be like having a PhD in palmistry or the reading of tea leaves. )

Well ... have you ever heard of Elaine Pagels , the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University and her most famous book "The Gnostic Gospels?"

How about ... Wayne A. Meeks, the Woolsey Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Yale University and his book "The Origins of Christian Morality?"

Should I go on? "

Nope. The point stands. Studying the origins, history or nuance of religion doesn't make gods exist or religions any less nonsensical.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 6:09:50 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"
Circular reasoning? Irish? Perhaps you have never been exposed to the concept that religion and science complement each other. "

Changing the subject will not work. The Golden Rule has no more to do with religion than does food or the weather. That religions claim it, exclaim it or put it in the mouth of gods does not change the fact that religion is completely unnecessary for the GR to be recognized, understood and practiced.

And I will say once more that most of the deities humans have invented do not actually practice the GR.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 6:12:05 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"Seriously, tell me then, why at the same university where Richard Dawkins graduated from there is also a world famous theology college with famous authors too. "

Because magical thinking is ubiquitous and humans believe things without evidence. Many fine universities used to have schools of astrology as well. That didn't make astrology one bit more useful.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 7:01:03 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Exactly.

There are PhDs in World Mythology, but that doesn't mean they're qualified to turn people into laurel trees, or that a thunder-god ever disguised himself as a golden shower to get a girl.

The fact that people STUDY fiction and lies doesn't make them any more true.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 7:33:19 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 27, 2012 7:58:49 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
AC wrote: "Should I go on?"

Actually, by double posting, you already have! (-:

IL and I were just jivin' about there being no such thing as a expert on religion. But let's make a distinction between an expert on religious history and a theologian. Religions, obviously, do have impact on the broader history of mankind, as well their own histories. The history of religion is an important aspect of the history of mankind.

At least in the case of Christianity, its history is very revealing, and, from the perspective of the devout and the clergy, that's not a good thing. For that reason (and perhaps for others that I haven't considered), little is taught - even in parochial schools - about pagan influences on Christian beliefs; how and when the gospels were written, and by whom; the degree to which the historicity of scriptural accounts is supported by other evidence; how the books of the NT were canonized, and so on.

The early history of Christianity is not a pretty sight, and matters haven't improved as time has marched on. For example, I don't expect Catholic schools 50 years from now to even bring up the child molestation scandals of the last few decades. Or Sunday schools to mention the tendency of 20th and 21st century evangelical preachers to steal from their congregations and cheat on their spouses.

The reasons for the historical conjoining of religion and ethics is an interesting topic that's rarely discussed. One way of looking at it is that historically, the church has been an organ of the state. A key role of the state is to maintain civil order, which it has done by two means: coercion (police power) and persuasion (the church). In effect, the state has used the church as a instrument to maintain stability and social order. And to rally the population to support whatever war it's fighting at the time.

There are exceptions, however. In the Roman Empire, the role of religion was highly ritualistic. Although community-wide participation in sacrificial rites tended to foster social cohesion, Roman religion(s) did not have strong moral or ethical components. Ethics were an aspect of philosophy rather than worship.

The Christian emphasis on ethics may be a partial explanation for the rapidity of the religion's rise and eventual status as the state religion. On the one hand, the "99%" liked being able to rely on a strict, consistent and easy-to-understand code of ethics; on the other, Constantine found a new and effective instrument of state power - and he put it to practical use!

Just thinking off the top of my head here, but it does explain - at least to some degree - the church's traditional role as the arbiter of morality.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 7:35:52 AM PDT
D. Thomas says:
RAS wrote: "Theology is the only field of study in which it is impossible in principle to learn ANYTHING about the actual subject."

Totally agree, Robert. I got sidetracked onto the historical aspect in my post, but you hit the nail on the head.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 11:36:13 AM PDT
"In fact the greatest scientists have been christians who totally believe in God"

Well I'm guessing you don't consider Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Neils Bohr, Paul Dirac, Claude Shannon, Richard Feynman, Francis Crick or James Watson (to name a few) to be some of the greatest scientists. But well I am glad then that you consider Darwin to be one of the greatest scientists (he was Christian. Or at least until he began his work on evolution)!!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 11:53:17 AM PDT
CAM says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 2:18:12 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
Yes.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  221
Total posts:  9878
Initial post:  Dec 28, 2011
Latest post:  May 26, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions