Sorry, but thats like trying to say the area of north america is always inaccurate due to the uncertainty principle. And when these small quantum forces add up to a middle world interpretation, so the logic still works. Take Feynmann's multiple history theories. At first sight they're a direct contradiction to newtons laws of motion, but they still make sense to the sum (integral)of paths for larger objects.
Originally Posted by shak
If science and logic fail in god, they have equal probabilities of failing for the flying pink elephant, the celestial teapot and an infinite other phenomenon. If you want to give equal weight to all of these infinite phenomenon, due to an absolute lack of evidence, you have a probability 0 for any single one being true.
... that might be true for God as well . .science and logic might fail when it comes God . .who knows! thas what i am saying
Doesnt need to be true via logic for the flying pink elephant (FPE). Why i'm invoking FPE is that its one of infinite phenomenon that could exist if you suspend logic in the name of transcending logic
if something is true here . .it certainly doesnt need to be true via logic for God as well
Maybe. Honestly, if god means an superioir intelligence who knows everything that goes on in this universe, then i have a more than 0 probability of that. (Due to quantum *******, multiverse theories and the laws of probability)
.. ...hence my approach to this matter is being influenced by that .. ditto for you.
Please define god for me.
we are in the same boat ..
Faith= Reason without evidence
the problem is mate, that to answer these question you need a tiny bit of help from faith .. i know i know i am just giving you a reason to come back at me but thats what it is ..faith
. .when God says i am alone ... i take his word for that ..
Hhaahahahahahah.... Indirect perception is the use of telescopes (indirect vision, but still, vision) and logically extrapolating it. There's no evidence that what youre experiencing is a god, nor are there any logical extrapolations.
.. i dont what he is and where he is but i know that he is there .. (the indirect perception PM)..
How can you have faith that it is God of the muslim (or abrahamic in general) as opposed to Zeus, Vishnu, Ra, etc (Write (2) if you want me to add more on that)? Most of us are atheists about most of the gods that ever existed in the human minds. Some of us just go one god further.
so if i believe in him then i have to believe what he says there is no way for me to verify anything .. and perhaps i cant!
Same with FPE. Were too inferior. The number of possibilites that you bring by saying that is infinite. ANYTHING can be "superior", no reason to pick god, chuck norris, etc
....and thats what i think is the problem with us . .we are just inferior when it comes to God.
No, my religion tells me to be peaceful :televangelist:
Yes, thats why simple beginnings are more probable than complex beginnings (which is what fine tuning implies)
infinite regression toward gods right? what if the starting point is not God? starting point is us . we ..right here .. do a regression then .. does it contain genesis?
No, you didnt get the point. My point was that you cannot get to a finite point (lets say the big bang) from an infinte beginning. A beginning that lies an negative infinity seconds.
and negative infinity? ... infinity .. thats a repetitive regression as you said
That was my assumption based on my opinion that it is more likely that inductive logic is true than not.
The fact that you call the extremists are miguided and that the extremists think that youre indoctrinated is a telling.
i dont reall.. who are just misguided)
What is the economic position of them? (jews are rich i suppose). Not just that, but european jews have a high percentage of disbelievers in a personal god (like Einstein), but i dont want to venture too far into that.
... where there is majority of jews, maybe 98% density, and that is the most peaceful area of london ever!!
I'm sorry but she wouldnt like it (and probably wont be alive) if those people lived by the old testament (in the new one she would be alive, but just badly abused many times). My point is NOT that religious people are more immoral. It is that ALL people draw their ethics NOT from religion (except maybe Jains). The fact that we can agree that many verses in both of these are immoral proves us that.
my cousin who is in uni, prefers to live amongst them cuz for her that is a safe area she can go running at midnight without ....
Imagine the fate if someone did. (one of the reasons) And yes, religious gatherings can be the epitomes of (what one would consider) altruism (not always, eg: child sacrifices, stoning people, etc).
in mecca, whenever it is time for prayers, people go to mosque and leave their shops open! thats true you can verify this, they dont lock their shops cuz they know no one will steal anything when the shop is left open without guard for prayers.. and no one does ..
Firstly, ambiguity in religious texts and sayings is the criminal here imo. But i honestly think that the most religious (not most ethical) christian would stone his wife if he knew that she wasnt a virgin. YOU (with the human morals, independant of religion) draw the line between extremism and reasonable beliefs.
but ofcourse when you religion corrupts your mind, it can prove to be the most destructive of .. and sorry, but i dont find religion at fault here, i find people and thier interpretations at guilt.
NO, its NOT genetic transfer. They behave like genes but arent genes themselves. Think of a religion for example; the kid is brought up to think that it is of a certain religion (even though it doesnt have any clue on the cosmos and our role), gullably accepts it, and self propagates the idea that its religion is the best.
logically plausible but to some extent, i agree with e.e, but memeism is kinda dodgy, the transfer of cultural information/ideas/values is down to observation and learning ability of humans themselves most probably, the genetical transfer, though possible, is slightly less probable ..
No, it says love your neighbour as long as he doesnt:
i find that the bits that layout morals and ethics have not been changed completely, cuz you just cant, if bible says respect your neighbour, no one in his right mind will change it to kill your neighbour,
Work on the sabbath
Doesnt seduce you to serve other gods
Many other stoning excuses that i havent heard.
Not quite, telereligious programmes pick and choose nice verses and ignore the violence in the name of "the overriding message" which is what youre saying, but imo thats just being plain dishonest.
so the basic set of morals and values have remained pretty much the same with a little or no change, its when it comes to political views that we see extensive adulteration, kings, saints and popes of different era altered political verses for their own good, if thye wanted certain people dead, they would declare them to be criminals in the eyes of god, if they wanted more power, they glorified themselves in 'holy text', if something came in their way, they removed it from the book altogether ...
Again, the dishonesty. "general morals" dont invoke a god and religion wont make their ethics any different.
so there have been changes, but to very particular topics and those shouldnt really make bible any less useful tool for general morals and ethics
Yes, god the omnipotent real estate agent. Lets just kill palestinians in the name of god shall we?
this refers to the children of israel, they had setteled in egypt and then were enslaved by the pharoah, moses was appointed by god to save the children of isreal and deliver them to the promised land .. (fairytale to you i am sure)
Again, no truth value, just a control freak religion, discourages critical thinking (a better meme)
very much in accord with a religious text.
Yes, thats why were in agreement that there are nice and nasty verses in the old testament. Religion does not give me ANY part of my morals.
ofcourse they arent moral absolutes, but atleast they are something! .. where did you get your morals from? e.e? meme? observation? common sense? does your morals and ethics have anything common with mine?
Firstly, if you even derive a part of your morals from religion, then you should be accepting of ALL the verses of the Quran. Atleast one verse that struck me as immoral was 4:34. It canNOT be that you can say some verses are nice and some verses are bad if you believe in your religious texts by the slightest bit.
where did i get my morals from? .. 1) part form religion 2) part from e.e and part from observation and common sense ..
I' sorry but i dont see how or why, we have instincts which guide us in the case of morality anyway. And where that doesnt work, we have thought, which can do the trick.
so religion is not the final word when it comes to morals .. religion is just a tool that can be employed to spread morals and ethics, and it has proven to be useful over the years you just cannot deny that .. atleast i dont see how
religion and morality are two different things just like ketchup and mustard .. they can be used on their own but when used together ..compliment each other.[/QUOTE]
" Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.
But all the girls, who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. "- Book Of Numbers 31:17-18