Philosophy Now Forum

It's not the belief I find difficult; it's the contradiction between claiming doubt in the story while also claiming faith in the story. I just wondered whether this bothered anyone else. It doesn't seem to bother the people who do it.

Skip wrote:It's not the belief I find difficult; it's the contradiction between claiming doubt in the story while also claiming faith in the story. I just wondered whether this bothered anyone else. It doesn't seem to bother the people who do it.

Why would it? The story is tangential to the belief because beliefs are inaccessible to reason by their very definition. The content of the story is irrelevant but the marketing of the story is crucial to the success of the entire enterprise. Surely you can see the obvious parallels in our modern consumer-driven world. Selling beads and trinkets to the great unwashed is as easy as falling off a log if you've got the right spiel.

Sure, okay. I like to discharge a little annoyance once in a while, by pointing it out. I'll stop now.

Skip wrote: I like to discharge a little annoyance once in a while, by pointing it out.

Me too. However in my case it's a bit more than simply annoyance, it's more a case of genuine outrage. Let's not forget that over the past two millennia literally billions of human lives have been needlessly wasted in the service of this non-existent being and countless more billions of lives have been made unnecessarily miserable. When is enough going to be enough? When will the bloodthirsty tastes of the god of vengeance finally be slaked? Has our world not feared and obeyed this misanthropic villain for long enough?

Skip wrote:It's not the belief I find difficult; it's the contradiction between claiming doubt in the story while also claiming faith in the story. I just wondered whether this bothered anyone else. It doesn't seem to bother the people who do it.

One of the prerequisites of any religion is to accept contradiction and subsequently level out any such contradictions by dogma.This is the very essence of religion causing it to blunder into untruth based on the expediencies of an elite. Is there any religion that doesn't have an elite and the dogmatic constitutions upholding their power?

Obvious Leo wrote:Let's not forget that over the past two millennia literally billions of human lives have been needlessly wasted in the service of this non-existent being.

I think by non-existent being you are implying God\'God'...how do you KNOW it doesn't exist? This thread is about our perception of reality. We only have five senses with which to analyse said perception, we have difficulty with our perception of anything beyond three-four dimensions. Physicists on paper are suggesting far more dimensions that create our reality...how can you be so sure?

attofishpi wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Let's not forget that over the past two millennia literally billions of human lives have been needlessly wasted in the service of this non-existent being.

I think by non-existent being you are implying God\'God'...how do you KNOW it doesn't exist? This thread is about our perception of reality. We only have five senses with which to analyse said perception, we have difficulty with our perception of anything beyond three-four dimensions. Physicists on paper are suggesting far more dimensions that create our reality...how can you be so sure?

If I haven't bumped into God, heard him, seen him, smelled his BO or "wind"... I'm not going to taste him lol!... and no one else has either, then it's a fairly safe statement god is as real as any fictional character. Certainly safer than saying he is.

Please post under at least one alias. I was questioning your Obvious Leo version of you.

attofishpi wrote: I think by non-existent being you are implying God\'God'...how do you KNOW it doesn't exist? This thread is about our perception of reality. We only have five senses with which to analyse said perception, we have difficulty with our perception of anything beyond three-four dimensions. Physicists on paper are suggesting far more dimensions that create our reality...how can you be so sure?

There's an old saying which applies in both science and philosophy. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and the burden of proof always lies with the claimant. This applies to theists and physicists alike. However dimensions on paper could always come in handy in the toilet when the bog-roll runs out.

attofishpi wrote:Please post under at least one alias. I was questioning your Obvious Leo version of you.

You have my word that there is only one of me and I have never posted under another username, either here or elsewhere.

attofishpi wrote:Please post under at least one alias. I was questioning your Obvious Leo version of you.

"Boo hoo! I don't like Dalek's answer, so I'm going to insult him, and call him Leo's sock puppet!"

Obvious Leo wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Please post under at least one alias. I was questioning your Obvious Leo version of you.

You have my word that there is only one of me and I have never posted under another username, either here or elsewhere.

God, Leo. You actually dignified this moron's accusation?

Well attofishpi, if you dont believe in Dalek Prime as a separate individual who is writing on this forum, you have no reason in believing in a god who you've never communicated with. You've just answered your own question.

Twerp.

Obvious Leo wrote:

attofishpi wrote: I think by non-existent being you are implying God\'God'...how do you KNOW it doesn't exist? This thread is about our perception of reality. We only have five senses with which to analyse said perception, we have difficulty with our perception of anything beyond three-four dimensions. Physicists on paper are suggesting far more dimensions that create our reality...how can you be so sure?

There's an old saying which applies in both science and philosophy. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and the burden of proof always lies with the claimant. This applies to theists and physicists alike. However dimensions on paper could always come in handy in the toilet when the bog-roll runs out.

Sure. So prove to me God\'God' doesn't exist, i'm all eyes

attofishpi wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

attofishpi wrote: I think by non-existent being you are implying God\'God'...how do you KNOW it doesn't exist? This thread is about our perception of reality. We only have five senses with which to analyse said perception, we have difficulty with our perception of anything beyond three-four dimensions. Physicists on paper are suggesting far more dimensions that create our reality...how can you be so sure?

There's an old saying which applies in both science and philosophy. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and the burden of proof always lies with the claimant. This applies to theists and physicists alike. However dimensions on paper could always come in handy in the toilet when the bog-roll runs out.

Sure. So prove to me God\'God' doesn't exist, i'm all eyes

The onus is on you to prove he exists. Not on someone to prove he doesn't, Jimmy.

http://www.quora.com/What-is-a-Christia ... lls-Teapot

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus...

Russell's teapot is a counter to the question "Prove that God doesn't exist." It makes the case that the question is irrelevant, as theists who claim God's existence are the only ones who would need to provide proof in an argument.

PS. You're still a twerp, attofishboy.