Religions are created by the delusional.

You keep touting "Argument from Ignorance" but you haven't apparently taken notice of this portion;

The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true. He adds, A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence. (Copi 1953)

My emphasis. Or are you claiming there is no evidence god merely because no-one has ever looked for evidence?
 
You keep touting "Argument from Ignorance" but you haven't apparently taken notice of this portion;



My emphasis. Or are you claiming there is no evidence god merely because no-one has ever looked for evidence?

assuming of course that god is inferior to the sense perception of the conditioned living entity, yes (never mind if a god that fitted such a description would not fit the general implications of the word "god")
 
assuming of course that god is inferior to the sense perception of the conditioned living entity, yes (never mind if a god that fitted such a description would not fit the general implications of the word "god")

So people have looked, and found nothing?
And you just claim, "well of course he exists, he just doesn't want to be bothered at the moment"?

Again:
In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence. (Copi 1953)
Repeat:
It is reasonable to take absence of proof as evidence towards non-occurrence.
 
Oli

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
assuming of course that god is inferior to the sense perception of the conditioned living entity, yes (never mind if a god that fitted such a description would not fit the general implications of the word "god")

So people have looked, and found nothing?
and some people have looked and found somehting
And you just claim, "well of course he exists, he just doesn't want to be bothered at the moment"?
the perceivable and the empirical (in the classic understanding of the word) are not identical (in other words the assertion that everything that is capable of being perceivable is within the grasp of the direct perception of anyone regardless of the state of consciousness is not a valid statement)
Again:

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence. (Copi 1953)

Repeat:
It is reasonable to take absence of proof as evidence towards non-occurrence.
my question to you is what is the qualification for a person investigating the nature of god? (since, at least for the sake of argument, there are persons - and also quite a few crack pots too I will admit - that have attested to the perception of something of god's nature)
 
You keep touting "Argument from Ignorance" but you haven't apparently taken notice of this portion;



My emphasis. Or are you claiming there is no evidence god merely because no-one has ever looked for evidence?

Yes exactly, the reason there's no evidence for God is because its IMPOSSIBLE to gather evidence of God....for instance science by DEFINITION cannot say there is anything supernatural or outside of nature...so its IMPOSSIBLE to gather scientific evidence of God....

Also any evidence gathered will be labeled as a "god of gaps" (it doesn't matter if we have no natural explanation, that just means that nature-did-it and that God could've never did it)
 
Yes exactly, the reason there's no evidence for God is because its IMPOSSIBLE to gather evidence of God....for instance science by DEFINITION cannot say there is anything supernatural or outside of nature...so its IMPOSSIBLE to gather scientific evidence of God....
It's also impossible to gather evidence of something that doesn't exist.

Also any evidence gathered will be labeled as a "god of gaps"
Make your mind up. Is it possible to have evidence or not?

Okay. If you admit there is no evidence, and that is impossible to gather evidence why should I or anyone believe he exists?
 
It's also impossible to gather evidence of something that doesn't exist.
Your analogy fails...the only way you can say something doesn't exist is because you have absolute evidence of absence....in the case where you can't gather evidence it's completely different....say for instance there's this high wall, and no one can get past it and see whats on the other side of the wall....you can't gather evidence of whats on the other side but it doesn't mean nothing's there nor that something is there....you can't really draw any conclusion, its just "unknown" based on the evidence...therefore the only logical thing to say is that its just "unknown" whether God really exists or not...not that God doesn't exist...

Just like with the many-worlds interpretation, although you can't gather evidence (for nor against it) at the present time it doesn't make it not true or false.....you just say its "unknown" whether its true or not.....so why do atheists take the leap of faith and say "God doesn't exist"?

Oli said:
Make your mind up. Is it possible to have evidence or not?
Well it depends what you would consider to be evidence....there's lots of small corroborating evidence that God exists...but this evidence is not direct evidence of God, just evidence of design, consciousness, etc....thats ALL you can really gather....

Oli said:
Okay. If you admit there is no evidence, and that is impossible to gather evidence why should I or anyone believe he exists?
The same reason Stephen Hawkings can believe in the many-worlds intepretation without evidence (for nor against it).....

The reason you can believe in something without evidence, that there's no way of gathering evidence of, is because something is true with or without evidence...so there are innumerable things that are already true with or without evidence.....so if you care more about the actual truth then you can believe....otherwise if you only care about what the current evidence shows (what appears to be true) then you won't believe nor care to believe...
 
Religions are man-made.
Christianity is Christ-made. Judaism is God-made.
All others are man-made.
Paul and Moses weren't hallucinating. I would bet everything I own on that one.
Smith was just the founder of the Mormons. He was just a mere man. Not a man of God like Paul and Moses.
I would think the founders of the Wiccans and pagans have had plenty of hallucinations.

lol

peace.
 
Your analogy fails...the only way you can say something doesn't exist is because you have absolute evidence of absence....in the case where you can't gather evidence it's completely different....
Reread the argument from ignorance that YOU keep linking to.

Just like with the many-worlds interpretation, although you can't gather evidence (for nor against it) at the present time it doesn't make it not true or false
You keep coming back to this "many worlds interpretation" I assume you mean multiverse as opposed to the "many worlds" explanation for photon interference. I will say this one more time: it is an interpretation. It is not widely held and is one idea among many.

Well it depends what you would consider to be evidence....there's lots of small corroborating evidence that God exists...but this evidence is not direct evidence of God, just evidence of design, consciousness, etc....thats ALL you can really gather....
Evidence of design? Do tell.

The same reason Stephen Hawkings can believe in the many-worlds intepretation without evidence (for nor against it).....
Stephen Hawking (no "s") believes it? Or just accepts that it's one possible way of looking at things?

The reason you can believe in something without evidence, that there's no way of gathering evidence of, is because something is true with or without evidence...so there are innumerable things that are already true with or without evidence
For example?

.....so if you care more about the actual truth then you can believe....otherwise if you only care about what the current evidence shows (what appears to be true) then you won't believe nor care to believe...
If there's no evidence why should I believe? If there's no evidence how can I know it's true?
 
Religions are man-made.
Christianity is Christ-made. Judaism is God-made.
All others are man-made.
Paul and Moses weren't hallucinating. I would bet everything I own on that one.
Smith was just the founder of the Mormons. He was just a mere man. Not a man of God like Paul and Moses.
I would think the founders of the Wiccans and pagans have had plenty of hallucinations.


In response to the comment about athiests being delusional -- there are many athiests who make their arguements based on science. Science is rational and proof-based. Religion is based on belief and interpretation, not fact. There are many people out there who have religious beliefs that are dangerous and deadly and very delusional. You may believe whatever you like and I respect each individual out there for their own beliefs as long as they don't try to shove down everyone else's throat. I can do without the holier than thou attitude
 
Last edited:
I never said atheists were delusional. :confused:

Yes, some religions are dangerous, deadly, and delusional. (Like radical Islamofascists.) Mine is not. I never try to shove anything down anyone's throat. They're either receptive and ready or they're not. I have used 'turn or burn' on a few on their deathbeds. They just wouldn't get it. They finally got it. It was worth it to push and possibly 'offend' them on their deathbeds. They're in Heaven now.
Had they died unsaved I would have grieved for days. Knowing they're in Heaven led to a celebration of their death instead of mourning. It was awesome.:)

And I never said I was holier than anyone.
 
I never said atheists were delusional. :confused:

They're either receptive and ready or they're not. I have used 'turn or burn' on a few on their deathbeds. They just wouldn't get it. They finally got it. It was worth it to push and possibly 'offend' them on their deathbeds. They're in Heaven now.
Had they died unsaved I would have grieved for days. Knowing they're in Heaven led to a celebration of their death instead of mourning. It was awesome.:)

And I never said I was holier than anyone.

oh man, thats a classic:D
 
Last edited:
I never said atheists were delusional. :confused:

Yes, some religions are dangerous, deadly, and delusional. (Like radical Islamofascists.) Mine is not. I never try to shove anything down anyone's throat. They're either receptive and ready or they're not. I have used 'turn or burn' on a few on their deathbeds. They just wouldn't get it. They finally got it. It was worth it to push and possibly 'offend' them on their deathbeds. They're in Heaven now.
Had they died unsaved I would have grieved for days. Knowing they're in Heaven led to a celebration of their death instead of mourning. It was awesome.:)

And I never said I was holier than anyone.

*************
M*W: I cannot believe you coerced and badgered those people on their deathbeds because of your delusional belief! You probably hastened their demise! Where were their relatives when you were enforcing your sanctimonious crap on fragile human beings? I'm appalled the nursing staff would let you get away with this bullshit! This was only for your own ego that you did this self-righteous infringement on their beings. If I wasn't an atheist, I'd wish there was a hell so you could burn in it.
 
The families begged and pleaded with me to do something. Anything. I did. Why would you be upset that someone's spirit is in Heaven now with God and Jesus? One less spirit for hell. Is that why?:confused:
 
Their belief systems are just as valid as yours!
There are many paths to God . Religion itself is not important to God.It's what's in your heart and mind that is important. We all have a simple choice in life..embrace the good or embrace the bad (the ignorance of the ego)
Like many Christians you have swallowed all the man made lies.. "Our God is better than yours", "other religions are evil","you need a saviour to attain Heaven"( Your saviour is casting off the ego and following the voice of your inner self). God is not so petty that he/she requires constant reassurance and verbal assent
All Gods and Goddesses were created by mankind to reflect what they thought God should be,or what they wanted God to be...hence...all the various and often conflicting natures between the Gods/Goddesses...this is simply a combination of cultural differences,racism and other forms of ignorance.
Perhaps on some world halfway across the galaxy ,it's inhabitants are arguing over the nature of God..who knows.

quote of the week.
 
I never said atheists were delusional. :confused:

Yes, some religions are dangerous, deadly, and delusional. (Like radical Islamofascists.) Mine is not. I never try to shove anything down anyone's throat. They're either receptive and ready or they're not. I have used 'turn or burn' on a few on their deathbeds. They just wouldn't get it. They finally got it. It was worth it to push and possibly 'offend' them on their deathbeds. They're in Heaven now.
Had they died unsaved I would have grieved for days. Knowing they're in Heaven led to a celebration of their death instead of mourning. It was awesome.:)

And I never said I was holier than anyone.

Christianity and the Bible are dangerous too. Did you know the Bible supports slavery, Sandy? You must love you some slaves, don't u Sandy ole' girl? How many slaves do you own, Sandy? The Bible says it's just fine.

GET SOME SLAVES EVERYBODY!!! THE BIBLE SUPPPORTS IT :D

Your Bible is among the most evil books the world has ever seen.
 
Were you "smoking weed" when you posted that?:confused:

Sandy, the Bible is obviously NOT the word of God, and if it is, what a wrong God it is!!!!

Sex slavery:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Slavery allowed:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Death for hitting Dad:
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.
(Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Don´t pamper your slaves:
If a man pampers his servant from childhood, he will turn out to be stubborn. (Proverbs 29:21 NAB)

Beat your slaves:
By words no servant can be trained; for he understands what is said, but obeys not.
(Proverbs 29:19 NAB)

Beat your children:
Withhold not chastisement from a boy; if you beat him with a rod he will not die. Beat him with the rod, and you will save him from the nether world. (Proverbs 23:13-14 NAB)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top