There is no religion

[Teg]

However, isn't it a bit rash to completely exclude the possibility of a higher state of existence than ours (God)? It seems that if one were to experience a higher intelligence and then return to try and explain it to the rest of us humans, we would laugh at, ridicule, and shrug off this person as a deluded religious fanatic or a lunatic. It's very easy to relegate everything that I don't understand to the bunk-heap; It's more challenging, enlightening, and rewarding to deeply consider possibilities that to me at the moment seem absurd. That's what I call progress -- be it spiritual or scientific.

While your thoughts border on plagarism (Contact by Carl Sagan), it is a valid point. I don't think many of would cling to a certainty that we know as a fact that no such god exists. The only problem with this is that the other side is not so open-minded. They will not admit that it is possible that their god does not exist. Scientific theories don't claim absolute truth, only degrees of certainty. To a immensly large degree of certainty I can say that no god exists. We choose not believe that a god exists because there is no evidence. As soon as I am given evidence I will reconsider my position. So far all that I have heard are readings from an ancient book and some very shaky testimony from people who don't even claim to have witnessed events. This sort of evidence wouldn't even make it to trial.

Example
There was a murder: the claim by the state.
The other side: ok prove it.

The state: Well here we have a book written 1900 years ago saying so.

The other side: That truly unremarkable. What about the authors.

The state: Well, four men retelling the events in detail.

The other side: So then they were witness to the events.

The state: Well, no actually they reported the event 100 years after the event. But they probably heard it from a reliable source.

The other side: That's 100 years! Doesn't that mean that those who might have witnessed the crime would be dead and that any possible decendents are probably dead too?

The state: Well yeah. But they were probably all reliable sources. Look at some of the other points in the book about how people used to live longer.

The other side now introduces direct evidence to support the theory that people had not longer lives but shorter lives.

The other side: Are you asking the court to believe that people lived past 100 years only 1900 years ago?

The state: But look at all these people that believe in our case!

The other side: objection!

The judge: sustained

The state: But we know we are right!

The judge: Is that your entire case?

The state: well...yes.

The judge: I see no reason to go forward. Case dismissed.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Teg
I don't think many of would cling to a certainty that we know as a fact that no such god exists.*

IOW, you don't know.

*The only problem with this is that the other side is not so open-minded.*

So, "open-minded" means you don't know?
Why would anyone want to be open-minded, if it means to be uncertain and not knowing?

*They will not admit that it is possible that their god does not exist.*

But, we do.
There is a possibility that God, as you deny him, doesn't exist.

*Scientific theories don't claim absolute truth*

Thus it must default to claiming absolute falsehood, since there are only two choices.

*To a immensly large degree of certainty I can say that no god exists.*

You can say that to the same degree of certainty that you do not hold a winning lottery ticket.
IOW, there is overwhelming evidence that lottery tickets do not win.
In fact, even after the draw, there is overwhelming evidence that lottery tickets do not win.
It would be a foolish winner who believes the overwhelming evidence, instead of the single evidence of the winning number.

*We choose not believe that a god exists because there is no evidence.*

Actually, you have chosen to ignore what evidence there is.
You have chosen to declare that all other information is evidence, instead.
Thus, when I am holding the winning lottery ticket, you will attempt to convince me that I am not winning, based on the preponderance of evidence.

*This sort of evidence wouldn't even make it to trial.*

Sorry, dude, your head is so far up your ass that it is coming back out your mouth, so you think everything is normal.

The Bible is the basis for the justice system in English common law countries, i.e. the US, Britain, Canada, Australia, etc.

*The state: But look at all these people that believe in our case!
The other side: objection!
The judge: sustained*

The actual judge: overruled, since only 12 are required to believe, and that is what the jury system is all about.

Your thinking is so pathetically removed from reality it isn't even funny.
You seem totally unaware that the Bible is the basis for the legal system, and that the jury system is how things really work.
All that has to happen to win, is for your side to convince the jury.

On a political level, you can play with the jury, but at the end of your life, you will have to answer to a higher court, which you cannot manipulate.

 

[Teg]

Thus it must default to claiming absolute falsehood, since there are only two choices.

That is becoming very tiresome. Truth is not something that can be had absolutely, but rather in degrees of certainty. ONly a truly ignorant person would claim know something to be completely certain.

The Bible is the basis for the justice system in English common law countries, i.e. the US, Britain, Canada, Australia, etc.

I knew you capable of blatant lies, but this one is the worst amongst them. I'll grant that theft and killing are against the law, but seriously two does not make a foundation, especially when the two are a fact of coincidental logic. How profound it is not that both systems should say that killing and stealing are not okay. Worse yet is the hammurabi and other codes of law that predate the bible and are more detailed. The bible has most likely been more influenced than it has influenced. Of course there were theocracies here in the US. Puritans were a society based upon them. This particular society displayed the capabilities of such a system. Witch hunts are often the mainstays of such backward communities.

You can say that to the same degree of certainty that you do not hold a winning lottery ticket.
IOW, there is overwhelming evidence that lottery tickets do not win.
In fact, even after the draw, there is overwhelming evidence that lottery tickets do not win.
It would be a foolish winner who believes the overwhelming evidence, instead of the single evidence of the winning number.

No, I have witnessed people winning the lottery. I have yet to see a single deity.

Actually, you have chosen to ignore what evidence there is.
You have chosen to declare that all other information is evidence, instead.
Thus, when I am holding the winning lottery ticket, you will attempt to convince me that I am not winning, based on the preponderance of evidence.

Good, then you have evidence? I await such evidence, please reveal it to us so that we may review it.

All that has to happen to win, is for your side to convince the jury.

If the book were any other book, perhaps the names all changed, it would be different. I can attest that you are correct in stating that ignorance is widespread.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Teg
Truth is not something that can be had absolutely, but rather in degrees of certainty.*

That is total garbage, and is contradictory, to boot.
If what you say is true, then your statement is false.
On the other hand, if the truth can only be known to a degree, then your statement is only true to a degree, therefore if you disagree with me, I can say it is because your degree of certainty is defective.
I say that anyway.

*ONly a truly ignorant person would claim know something to be completely certain.*

I see you have completely taken leave of your senses.
"ignorant" normally means not knowing.
You have now added knowing to the meaning of ignorant.
Great work, Teg!
Thus whether you know or don't know something, you are ignorant.

I was actually getting to that, but you beat me to it.

*I knew you capable of blatant lies, but this one is the worst amongst them.*

You actually know nothing of the legal system.

*I have witnessed people winning the lottery. I have yet to see a single deity. *

There's only one draw.
Besides, you are arguing against yourself again.
The overwhelming evidence in any lottery is that tickets do not win.
How can you so blatantly ignore the preponderance of evidence?

*Good, then you have evidence?*

Just as in a lottery, there is a preponderance of evidence against the winning ticket, you have provided me with that evidence.
Here is the single piece of evidence that proves that the Bible is true...

...the wringing of the nose brings forth blood...
(Proverbs 30:33, KJV).

*I can attest that you are correct in stating that ignorance is widespread. *

I thought you might since you have your own as such incontrovertible proof.

 

[enton]

Last night, while pondering how everything began, how it managed to fit, and everything else. I realized that the human mind simply can't comprehend the universe, no matter how intellegent it may be. Religion was formed to help people not feel so helpless.

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27 of the King James Version of the Bible.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

enton: Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27 of the King James Version of the Bible.
*************
M*W: You're PREACHING and quoting the Bible, and you've repeated this on another ancient thread you resurrected.

 

[enton]

M*W: You're PREACHING and quoting the Bible, and you've repeated this on another ancient thread you resurrected.

Dear Med:

Anything wrong?