PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Actually it does, by showing that the immaterial is a very sneaky illusion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What evidence for God
- Thread starter nonbeliever_92
- Start date
Commoner
Headache
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
You've taken H.L. Mencken's essay ridiculing the "dead gods" of religion and turned it into the weakest argument for the Abrahamic God I have ever heard.
I was really expecting more after all the hype.
Wombat
Active Member
Gee guys
Your devastating analysis and critique really knocked the wind right out of my sails.
Rarely have the realms of rational argument and critical thinking seen such well thought out rebuttals.
The way you both took the overall proposition and skun it alive and then delivered such insightful and succinct point by point deconstruction of each element of my case........heck....it was like watching some kind of cerebral Shock and Awe campaign of counter argument.
You be Like some kinda super science irrefutable empirical annihilators of arguments so ‘Failed’ you don’t even have to touch them...or consider them...or even mention them...once.
I guess “all my bases be yours” and to the victors the spoils.
I’m just grateful that as you met and tore apart my argument you showed mercy and did not deploy the animated emoticons.
Your devastating analysis and critique really knocked the wind right out of my sails.
Rarely have the realms of rational argument and critical thinking seen such well thought out rebuttals.
The way you both took the overall proposition and skun it alive and then delivered such insightful and succinct point by point deconstruction of each element of my case........heck....it was like watching some kind of cerebral Shock and Awe campaign of counter argument.
You be Like some kinda super science irrefutable empirical annihilators of arguments so ‘Failed’ you don’t even have to touch them...or consider them...or even mention them...once.
I guess “all my bases be yours” and to the victors the spoils.
I’m just grateful that as you met and tore apart my argument you showed mercy and did not deploy the animated emoticons.
outhouse
Atheistically
page after page after page
the question still remains unanswered as OP asked.
do you have any evidence at all???
elcazador
Member
Really, an illusion we deal with our whole lives? And I doubt highly that neurology explains the ever expanding capabilities of mankind and the vital role of abstract reasoning which is not possessed by all other beings with brains. It might give whats but not whys. Brains but not minds.
Wombat
Active Member
None that any non theist/Atheist here is prepared to stand up and argue against and refute.
I've ony got that kind argument/evidence that collapses under the devistating rational weight of facepalm emoticons and blind eye sarcasm.
TheGodHypothesis
Descent with modification
YOU are making the improbable hypothesis of an omnipotent being. It is YOUR burden of proof not ours. "Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof". I assert that purple unicorns exist...prove to me they don't. Would you be reasonable in accepting purple unicorns with a high degree of probability? Of course not, if you did you would be irrational. Give us a proof or simply say, " I believe because I do" I can at least respect your conviction if not your utter credulity if you would.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Gee Wombat,
You have given us nothing worth refuting.
"Why has no successful major faith arisen and ridden on from other than such a narrow geographical region/stable?"
Is not evidence of anything at all. All you have shown is that once monotheistic beliefs took hold, they became the most comfortable to human beings.
The eventual monotheism of Judaism spawned Christianity. Christianity and Judaism spawned Islam. And from those three came Baha'i. And each has spawned various cults and sects whose main similarities are monotheistic.
In other words, you have stated the obvious. The Abrahamic God concept is the basis for for todays monotheistic religions.
That is hardly reasonable evidence of the actual existence of the Abrahamic God.
In fact, if we take it further back, we could see that the Abrahamic God concept is just the result of even earlier concepts of one tribal deity being revered above the gods of opposing tribes.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
If it collapses under that, than it wasn't much of an argument to begin with.
Dan4reason
Facts not Faith
You left out some religions of comporable sizes to Judaism and Zororastrianism, namely Sikhism, Baha'i, Confusianism, jainism, Shintoism, Wicca, Juche, Cao Dai, Tenrikyo, and Spiritism. Now find if all of these don't have any overlap.
Also, there are still people who believe in cetic, roman and greek mythology. The biggest reason so many religions are extinct is because the Christian Roman empire, and Christian barbarian tribes persecuted and drove out non-believers along with agressive conversion work. The spanish forced Christianity on many American natives and things done during the colonialism of most of the world by Europe did a good job of driving many other religions to extinction.
By the way, the biggest reason the list of scientists don't have overlap is because all but one were born after 1600. Religions on the other hand are scattered throughout 7,000 years of human history. The lifetimes of 6 randomly selected people could have easily not overlapped in fact this may have even be likely.
Dan4reason
Facts not Faith
These divisions are only philosophical and a better view is that we have the ability to think with our brains, sense the world around us, and change the world around us. We do not have complete explanation although we have some good ones. Of course that does not mean that God exists. It just means we have a few mysteries that need solving.
RitalinO.D.
Well-Known Member
I'm not real sure of your train of thought here, as every single person I listed has had major influence on music. Half of them I don't or have never listened to. Bob Dylan and Ray Charles being examples.
If I understand you correctly, you listed muddy waters as influential, then stating his rank on the Rollingstone 100 greatest of all time. Am I reading this correctly? Because if I am, then all but 1 of the artists I listed appear on that list, with 5 of them being in the top 11, below Muddy Waters.
Madonna - #36
Michael Jackson - 35
Prince - 28
Nirvana - 27
Bob Marley - 11
Jimi Hendrix - 6
Ray Charles 10
Bob Dylan - 2
Beatles - 1
I could have obviously just plagurized the top 10 from that list and provided it to you, but I didnt, and used my insight and listed 10 of the most influential artists in history. Obviously not the top 10 from Rollingstone.
However, after reading through your post about this so called evidence you have, I can clearly see I have wasted my time humoring this craziness. I've seen some seriously misguided people on this forum, but the stuff you are providing here is just so off the wall it's almost hard to believe your serious.
Do you seriously think any of that makes any sense or are you just playing devil's advocate to get a rise out of people?
Illusion to whom?
Wombat
Active Member
Thanks Dan
The omissions were conscious/deliberate for various valid reasons. Some of those you list are continuations of the great global animist/Native belief religious bedrock (Shintoism,), some are moral/political philosophies (Confusianism, Juche refers specifically to a political thesis of Kim Il-sung Wiki) others are lesser religions some fitting the timeline without overlap some not.
Bahai?...Left out for a couple of reasons...primarily it (along with all such new faiths) is too early to tell if it is a flash in the pan or not. The other reason is that it is the Binary Blip (Two Messengers) that for the first time in religious history loudly and clearly articulates the nature of the prior singularities- A string of pearls.
Yes Dan...There are a few fans of Xena Warrior Princess. But this (and all above) misses and ignores the central point and glairing anomaly. When identifying the outstanding greats in any other field we do not pretend they are the only horses that ever ran or contributed. Charlie Goodyear made an immense contribution to science/humanity...but rarely if ever is this struggler placed in the ranks of Science Royalty. Likewise in religion, there are lesser prophets, lesser religions, crossovers, fusions, sects and offshoots.
But the jockeys of the Major Living Faith traditions came in singular and discreet Dispensations throughout history...unlike any other field of human endeavour...just like one horse races.
Nobody has said a word to that central evidentiary point thus far...and Im kinda wondering why.
Nope...Sorry Dan...It just doesnt wash...The whole world is the potential race track for a major faith to arise and all recorded human history the race carnival for a religion horse to get up and running.
Christian Roman empire, and Christian barbarian tribes persecuted and drove out non-believers along with agressive conversion work. ? (Cite/examples?)
Do you wish to claim that the Christian Roman empire was better, nastier, more ruthless at stomping out new and troublesome religious movements than the pre Christian Roman empire?
That would be a new re writing of history indeed.
Vast areas and vast periods have been available, uninhibited by existing faiths, for humans to do what Atheists claim humans do with such frequent ease- invent gods and religions.
You say seven thousand years, I say ten...either way that is an immense trial period in the human- lets make a religion petri dish. The odds of there being no deuce rolled in that period, no Jesus and Mohammed in the same time frame or even close, are immense. If we had race Stewards for religion the whole show would be long ago shut down as rigged.
And no one is addressing that stark and obvious historical anomaly in probability.
A point already covered. Although science and scientists are spread through history there is a clear concentration in the modern era when science hit its straps...there is also the identified cultural bias that tends to ignore/omit the great scientific contributions from Eastern/Middle Eastern cultures.
Abd el-Latif el-Baghdadi 1162, Baghdad, Iraq 1231) physician, historian and Egyptologist.
Muhammad al-Fazari credited with building the first astrolabe in the Islamic world.
Emin Pasha physician and naturalist.
Al-Asma'i (739, Basra, Iraq - 831, Basra, Iraq) pioneer of Zoology, Botany and Animal Husbandry.
There are hundreds of great and influential scientists prior to 1600 Dan...and they appear in history as one would expect- scattered singular, in overlapping pairs and clusters and in large groups within great civilizations.
But religion...>just another human invention or product in the market place<...DOES NOT have anything like the same random historical pattern.
Hey you noticed!
.....1...........1........1...........1............1.....................1.......
Scattered and >isolated< in time....but not in other features....Any Track Steward worth his salt would be looking to see what these great winning influential horses had in common...besides the common geographical Stable.
Nhaaa...Please dont try to fudge the selection criteria Dan, we are not comparing 6 randomly selected people...they were chosen as the stand out greats of religion, the clear and obvious winners of the religion race....to be compared to any other field of stand out greats. The problem of the religious greats is that they not only stand out...they literally and invariably stand alone in their field in isolation.
And that cannot be seen or said of any other field of human endeavour.
Commoner
Headache
It just fails on so many levels...
The horse analogy is completely false. Unlike horse-racing, the distribution of religions (or your "religious starters") has no predetermined value - whether they overlap in some specific way or not at all makes no difference. I tried to warn you about this at the beginning of the conversation. Secondly, unlike in horse racing, the individual event here isn't unlikely at all. Thirdly, these are not independent events - religions do not exist in a vacuum, independent from one another, oblivious of one another's dogmas. Neither are they random. Numero quatro, your sample there was hardly randomly selected... Fifthly, what in the world is the connection between the distribution of these "starters" and an actual deity that you're trying (and I use the word "trying" loosely) to establish?
I could go on and on and on, but why bother? You certainly didn't... Your argument is on the level of "why is there never a Paleozoik and a Mesozoik at the same time?"
Last edited:
Wombat
Active Member
Unlike horse-racing, the distribution of religions (or your "religious starters") has no predetermined value
Ah Huh... And what is the predetermined value of a horse in a race?
Saying it is so does not make it so unless and until you can present a rational argument as to how and why it is so......you have not done so.
The great living religions do not overlap in a very specific way (why the attempt to make it vague with some?)...they do not overlap in the lifetimes of those who initiated them...unlike any other field of human endeavour/activity in which we can identify stand out greats...and that fact makes all the difference.
Which explains why all of the non theist contingent are prepared to dismiss it out of hand...but none are prepared to address, rebut or refute it.
Your argument with rolling Deuce four times in a row was that a Casino would expect such an outcome a couple of times a week given the total global throws...are you now going to tell me that given the innumerable throws at starting a religion that humans have made over ten thousand years that it isn't unlikely at all that they >NEVER< threw Deuce?
Your concept of probability has a one way bias in favour of the Atheist House.
>Exactly< the same argument can be made for a horse race- races do not exist or occur in a vacuum, one race influences handicap/opportunity in the next, races do not transpire oblivious to the past or conditions.
All that said...it is all irrelevant...the existence of influencing factors was never in question or doubt...none of these factors- prior influence/independence/dogma could make any difference to the probability of two religions coming up Deuce together- Jesus/Mohammed- same time frame.
>Equally improbable< we never get a Jesus up against a Paleozoik whos faith lasted for 300- 1500 years then fell and faded to nothing.
But we do get >exactly< those circumstances in every other field- Science, Art, Philosophy...We get >two< or >three< Greats in their day contending, competing, sometimes even cooperating. Some Science Greats go on to influence all history >INDIVIDUALY, IN PAIRS, CLUSTERS AND GROUPS<- and some fall away- But in religion >ONLY< singular and isolated individuals go on to be Greats.
No explanation has been put forward to explain that extreme anomaly in probability.
Go for it...Pick some religion runners that are up there with Moses, Jesus, Mohammed...and expose how the field could have been more diverse.
Like Jockeys they all wear His colours (See The Golden Rule), none of these horses ran under the ancient colours of Mars or Thor-Die like a warrior, sword in hand...All of these horses started as rank outsiders, not a one was State Sponsored Favourite. In the day of the inception of >any one< of these starters a mug punter would have to be barking mad to put good money on any of them.
They >all< ran the same impossible race- Handicapped by exile and slavery, up against the Roman Occupation and the Jewish Elders, out of the desert and up against the Meccan Tribes.......they all beat the odds and transformed the world.
And they all left a prophetic Form Guide by which to identify the next winner.
Because you still have not addressed the central point and issue nor bothered to explain why, in ten thousand years, humanity has not thrown Deuce in the religion race and why with all the world to start from the Stable is in the East/Middle East?
Commoner
Headache
Sorry Wombat, this is not worth my time - or anyone else's. If you don't undersand how poor this argument is and how bad the horse race analogy is or if you just don't care and you're just going to continue running in circles presenting logically flawed arguments for people to waste their time on, there will be no end to this. You just throw out an argument and now you're asking me to do your work for you? Please, you should know better...
Wombat
Active Member
No need to apologise to me. If you cant/wont answer the pertinent questions nor meet, rebut and refute the core points...thats fine by me.
Im just wondering if the (collective) propensity to repeatedly declare how poor and logically flawed this argument is gives added weight to the inability to provide rational refutation?
The "work" of refuting it? Yea....if you want to claim with any credibility that it is poor or flawed then, yea, it is your job/work to provide arguement/evidence thereto.
Otherwise it's just an undeserved and hollow victory dance over something you have done no 'work' to diminish or defeat. " Please, you should know better".
(Have you noticed... the single most common feature of the preceeding posts is the propensity of non theists to put up a pov and then steadfastly refuse to respond to subsequent pertinent questions?
)
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Imagine I set up an interstellar lottery, that's similar to the normal lottery except that every ticket is made of 6 numbers between 1 and 60. I randomly give one ticket to every planet in ever star system in the galaxy, and only the planets that get all 6 numbers correct have life on them.
You would think, just from the premise, that it's astronomically unlikely for Earth to get the jackpot. And you'd be right, but watch my wording: it is astronomically unlikely, but there are astronomically many entrants. There are 400 billion stars, many of which have multiple planets, and only 50 million possible tickets. Attempting to argue that it's proof of God that we won won't actually get you anywhere.
You would think, just from the premise, that it's astronomically unlikely for Earth to get the jackpot. And you'd be right, but watch my wording: it is astronomically unlikely, but there are astronomically many entrants. There are 400 billion stars, many of which have multiple planets, and only 50 million possible tickets. Attempting to argue that it's proof of God that we won won't actually get you anywhere.