Are Religions and Gods manmade?

[mikkel_the_dane]

We are a remarkable species when judges against other species.

Get the whole quote.

The judgment is subjective and in you.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

But that is never the case of the true non-religious people, right? It is always everybody else, which are the gullible ones, right?

So point out where our gullibility is in relation to religion.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

The judgment is subjective and in you.

So point out where I'm wrong. You have to prove your point. Show us other species that can do more than Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, Homo Erectus, Denisovans. We evolved into the best overall species.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So point out where our gullibility is in relation to religion.

That you take a "we" for granted that is not there as with objective proof or evidence.

"We are a remarkable species when judges against other species." When you analyze that sentence, it is not science. It is first person psychology as for your individual value system.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
It connects to this. It is nothing but your personal opinion, yet you claim a "we" that is not there. In effect your "god" is that "we".

 

[Mock Turtle]

But that is never the case of the true non-religious people, right? It is always everybody else, which are the gullible ones, right?

Got that right - for once.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So point out where I'm wrong. You have to prove your point. Show us other species that can do more than Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, Homo Erectus, Denisovans. We evolved into the best overall species.

We are different, yes. But you make the positive claim: "We evolved into the best overall species." So you deliver the proof. You have the burden of proof.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

That you take a "we" for granted that is not there as with objective proof or evidence.

"We are a remarkable species when judges against other species." When you analyze that sentence, it is not science. It is first person psychology as for your individual value system.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
It connects to this. It is nothing but your personal opinion, yet you claim a "we" that is not there. In effect your "god" is that "we".

You're pointing out my poor grammar. I asked if you could point out other species that come near to us overall.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're pointing out my poor grammar. I asked if you could point out other species that come near to us overall.

Please show the objective measurement standard for "near". I am asking for the referent of "near". Where "near" happens not just as the word, but what the word "near" is about and how you know this?
Do that and get back with the answer.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

Please show the objective measurement standard for "near". I am asking for the referent of "near". Where "near" happens not just as the word, but what the word "near" is about and how you know this?
Do that and get back with the answer.

I gave you the answers to that. A larger brain, opposable thumbs, sophisticated speech, etc. Now give us your species who come close to doing all the things humans do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I gave you the answers to that. A larger brain, opposable thumbs, sophisticated speech, etc. Now give us your species who come close to doing all the things humans do.

How is that better?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Got that right - for once.

This was a bit flippant. But conmen thrive on fulfilling needs or desires - like greed or exploiting insecurities - and needing explanations for life is another seemingly which many possess, but some apparently don't, so they at least are protected in one area even if they might be wrong in their non-belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This was a bit flippant. But conmen thrive on fulfilling needs or desires - like greed or exploiting insecurities - and needing explanations for life is another seemingly which many possess, but some apparently don't, so they at least are protected in one area even if they might be wrong in their non-belief.

Well, there are also honest conmen. They don't work quite the same.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

I already told you that Baha'u'llah's testimony is not evidence or proof. I never said He wrote it down so it must be true. That would be ridiculous since anyone can write anything down. However, the same applies to you. You experienced something and then testified of it so it must be true does not cut the mustard. You need more than that.

Here's the flaw in your debate.

Atheist have science, history, archaeologist and100,000s of scientists with proof to back them up. You have mythology, superstition and loads of shaman to back you up.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here's the flaw in your debate.

Atheist have science, history, archaeologist and100,000s of scientists with proof to back them up. You have mythology, superstition and loads of shaman to back you up.

Atheists don't have that because some atheists are religious.
The only thing atheists have is a lack of belief/disbelief in gods.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

Atheists don't have that because some atheists are religious.
The only thing atheists have is a lack of belief/disbelief in gods.

So there isn't loads of proof about how the Earth evolved!!! Seems I got that wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So there isn't loads of proof about how the Earth evolved!!! Seems I got that wrong.

That has nothing to do with atheism. I am religious and I also have science. But that says nothing about metaphysics and what reality really is. There are science, philosophy and religion. They are interconnected in the everyday world in some sense, but they are also still different.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

That has nothing to do with atheism. I am religious and I also have science. But that says nothing about metaphysics and what reality really is. There are science, philosophy and religion. They are interconnected in the everyday world in some sense, but they are also still different.

Do you believe in a god and believe in science? Even when 1 contradicts the other.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you believe in a god and believe in science? Even when 1 contradicts the other.

Well, look up paraconsistent logic.

There is something else. Science is a belief system in a sense. To understand that you have to understand what methodological naturalism is and how it connects to this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

That I can believe in God is as natural as science is natural. You are observing it right now and if you observe a contradiction then that is natural, unless you believe I am doing something super-/un-natural.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

Well, look up paraconsistent logic.

There is something else. Science is a belief system in a sense. To understand that you have to understand what methodological naturalism is and how it connects to this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

That I can believe in God is as natural as science is natural. You are observing it right now and if you observe a contradiction then that is natural, unless you believe I am doing something super-/un-natural.

So just your belief.
I can cite the instances where science has proven religions wrong.

 

[Bear Wild]

OUCH!!!

It will take me quite a while to review so much back-up material to support your claim. I can clearly see that you have me outgunned and outmatched, so I'm just going to crawl under this rock for a while until this all blows over.

I would not take is so bad. I just disagree. During human evolution there was a point that religious behaviors started but there is no evidence they started with a god like figure. There is more evidence to support an animistic approach as an original view of religion. The issue of a generalized creation explanation would require far more complex language development and be later in human history. As for worship of a "god" or Goddess" would also be a later development with increasing complexity of social structure.