Did God create man?

[cybercoma]

....Face it, nobody knows for sure.

But at least denying the existence of God is more logical than believing. You don't need proof to disbelieve something, unlike believing....

Seems to me you're saying that those who disbelieved the world was round because there was no proof that it wasn't flat were more "logical" in their thinking than Columbus was. That being the case, "logical" didn't equal "right."

This is nonsense (both the original point about 'disbelief' and the 'flat world' argument).

One can assert that belief in the existence of God is irrational (it is a complex argument), but one cannot make the argument that belief in God is illogical. There is no logical basis for that claim.

If they said 'alogical' would that be better? I believe instead of saying it's illogical (as in contradictory to logic) they mean it's absent of logic (alogical is not a word).

[Mad_Michael]

If they said 'alogical' would that be better? I believe instead of saying it's illogical (as in contradictory to logic) they mean it's absent of logic (alogical is not a word).

In such a case, if such a word exists, they would then be correct.

It is indeed precisely what I have already said. An article of faith stands entirely and completely OUTSIDE of logic and human knowledge/science. It cannot be held to be illogical or contradictory to human science as there is no rational basis for the comparison.

[Drea]

Ah the religious...

They see god everywhere.

God is in the blue sky -- it is soooo beautiful, how could it NOT be created by a lovinggod?

God is in a dew drop -- its magical how the water retains the sphere shape, how could it NOT be created by a lovinggod?

The religious believe anything and everything is direct evidence of god. The very fact I am typing is (to them) evidence that god exists.

Ahhh the religious....Bless their onetrack minds. LOL

[Mad_Michael]

Ah the religious...

They see god everywhere.

God is in the blue sky -- it is soooo beautiful, how could it NOT be created by a lovinggod?

God is in a dew drop -- its magical how the water retains the sphere shape, how could it NOT be created by a lovinggod?

The religious believe anything and everything is direct evidence of god. The very fact I am typing is (to them) evidence that god exists.

Ahhh the religious....Bless their onetrack minds. LOL

In this they are much like their fervent opponents - the militant or fundamentalist atheists who consider it their life mission to attack religion and denigrate religious people.

[Drea]

Well, I wouldn't really say it's my life mission -- I don't really spend alot of time thinking about it... I am not worried whether or not my thoughts are sins against god or anything -- I just live life. *shrug*

I only dis religion on this forum. I would never ever dis my very religious co-worker's faith as she is a very nice person. If she were a preachy bi*** however, I would not put up with it.

[sharkman]

Some would say you are preachy Drea, and your gospel is what you expound upon whenever you are speaking against religion, which usually is quite often.

[guyser]

Well, I wouldn't really say it's my life mission -- I don't really spend alot of time thinking about it... I am not worried whether or not my thoughts are sins against god or anything -- I just live life. *shrug*

I only dis religion on this forum. I would never ever dis my very religious co-worker's faith as she is a very nice person. If she were a preachy bi*** however, I would not put up with it.

The why not afford the same respect to those here on this forum?

Coming from me that may seem a bit hypocrtical but the only ones who get dissed are those who proseltyze either to me or to us in general.

I take no glee in it, unlike you just did, for it takes some measure of respect to get along . Do I dislike religion, no question about it. But to diss it and mock those that believe is petty and trite.

But for the most part religious believers are like you and me, like watching sports, play sports, play with their kids, go to work, and the only thing we may differ in is what to do on Sunday morning. For one small difference they do not deserve mocking.

[Who's Doing What?]

Ah the religious...

They see god everywhere.

God is in the blue sky -- it is soooo beautiful, how could it NOT be created by a lovinggod?

God is in a dew drop -- its magical how the water retains the sphere shape, how could it NOT be created by a lovinggod?

The religious believe anything and everything is direct evidence of god. The very fact I am typing is (to them) evidence that god exists.

Ahhh the religious....Bless their onetrack minds. LOL

Hahaha

True dat!

[Drea]

I am sorry.

You are correct -- the folks on this board (most of you) deserve the same level of respect afforded my coworker.

When I wanna dis religion I'll go to an atheist forum.

It seems though -- just questioning an illogical belief is considered "dissing" to some folks -- yes I know I've done more than simply question... and for that I am sorry (not sorry for questioning though).

Life's far too short to go around worried allatime!

Cheers!

[BC_chick]

I only dis religion on this forum. I would never ever dis my very religious co-worker's faith as she is a very nice person. If she were a preachy bi*** however, I would not put up with it.

I watched an interview with Richard Dawkins last night where the interviewer asked him why he holds agnostics and moderates in more contempt than the actual God-believers. His answer really struck a cord with me.....

According to him, we've been brought up to be nice and respect others for their religious beliefs. But this "respect" is in fact the breeding grounds for fundamentalism... he went on to explain that if someone believed in some fairytale (xyz let's say), you wouldn't say oh, that's nice, we have to respect them for their beliefs. You think of that person as crazy.

Why should we treat them any differently for believing in the God fairytale when it's just as absurd as believing in unicorns.... this is how we are complicit in legitimising their views.

And he has a point - why am I capitalising God if I don't believe in "Him," if not for respect of others who do?

So at first I decided that I have to take a stand. I am agnostic, but I lean atheist more than I do theist, so if the line in the sand is drawn I have to stand with the unbelievers.... but going as far as disrespecting the theists I don't know.

But the difficulty in carrying this out only reaffirms how entrenched this superstition actually is. Dawkins makes a good point.

Food for thought.

[geoffrey]

If you believe that Dawkins has rational arguments, I'm afraid your sadly mistaken.

He hates all religion, no doubt, but his premises are all misguided. I have a friend that's an athiest biologist, a big fan of Dawkin's work in what he actually does, and he will even tell you that the way to 'fight' the existance of God definitely doesn't involve Dawkin's logic.

You capitalise God because it's a proper noun whether or not he really exists... you capitalise Harry Potter do you not?

[fellowtraveller]

That annoying little twerp George WiththelongGreekname that hosts The Hour on CBC (which should be named The Eternity) had Christopher Hitchens on the other day.

Poor George was in way way over his head and new it. He kept trying to throw softball questions at Hitchens, who was having none of it. Then Geo tried to suck up to him, but Hitchens wasn't having any of that either and kept yanking George back on task, which from the guests point was to disembowel organized religion. Which he did, succinctly and quickly. George was very very happy to see him gone. Poor boy.

[Electric Monk]

...Roman Catholicism stands on faith alone. It has no need for logically establishing anything at all - unlike your demand/assertion to the contrary.

So it doesn't need to, and it doesn't logically prove the existence of the Roman Catholic god. Explain how this fails to make the Roman Catholic religion illogical, if it's central premise cannot be verified.

To be "illogical" one must contradict "logic".

The assertion of the Roman Catholic Church that God exists is an article of faith.

As such, no claim of logic is made. And since one cannot contradict something that isn't there, this claim of the Roman Catholic Church cannot be deemed "illogical".

To put the point as clearly as possible - an article of faith stands entirely outside the realm of logic or human knowledge.

Good to see we're finally getting somewhere, isn't this nicer than that nastiness a page or so ago?

I agree with you that the assertion that the Roman Catholic god exists is alogical, but what is the RC religion if not a logical argument built on top of that assertion?

[BC_chick]

If you believe that Dawkins has rational arguments, I'm afraid your sadly mistaken.

He hates all religion, no doubt, but his premises are all misguided. I have a friend that's an athiest biologist, a big fan of Dawkin's work in what he actually does, and he will even tell you that the way to 'fight' the existance of God definitely doesn't involve Dawkin's logic.

Thanks - I think. Maybe one of these days you'll actually share a little bit about this lack of logic instead of just telling me what you and your friend think of him.

You capitalise God because it's a proper noun whether or not he really exists... you capitalise Harry Potter do you not?

You're comparing "God" to a fictional character, conjured in one person's imagination, resulting in enormous wealth to the character's creator?

Yeah, okay. Sounds about right....

I'll never write harry potter or god... again, I promise.

[Mad_Michael]

Good to see we're finally getting somewhere, isn't this nicer than that nastiness a page or so ago?

You tell me. You're the one who changed your tactics. I've changed nothing.

And from my neutral perspective, there's really not much difference at all.

Indeed, your continued attempt here at condescention is duly noted. I doubt if you can 'out-condescend' me.

I agree with you that the assertion that the Roman Catholic god exists is alogical, but what is the RC religion if not a logical argument built on top of that assertion?

The Roman Catholic Church does not claim that their religion is a "logical argument built on top" of anything.

The doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are held as articles of faith. No pretense of logic is claimed or asserted.

[Rue]

There are more then 2 choices.

The third choice I was not offered was and is that nneither Man or God pre-existed the other as they are one and the same.

I mean I have one nice story. It goes like this. Once upon a time there was something that just was, is and will always be. It defies any human definiton as to beginnings, middle or endings.

Now this something which defies description decided to vomit. It vomited bits of itself out word, maybe due to an internal imbalance or in act if disgust, maybe in a fit of loneliness, maybe in a fit of sheer insane range from being completely alone since because it wasand is everything it was and is nothing.

The act of vomiting bits of itself out of itself outword may have created an infinite exercise of these bits of vomit each becoming their own God or creator creating their own universes which in turn vomit out even more particles creating even more Gods of layers of vomit.

Trying to trace back these pieces of vomit to their original source of projection source might be impossible as the closer we get to the source the further it causes us to get from the source.

So the question is did the thing that originally vomit do so as an act of love or insane psychotic rage? Did it do so to stop being alone out of an absolute act of kindness, i.e., giving without expecting anything in return since it did not need anything, or did it do so because it was insane from being alone and needed compansionship?

So in my story one way or the other you are vomit. You are the result of a fart, a sneeze, a sudden bout of nausea. Whether that was involuntary or voluntary we do not have the brain capacity to know.

In my world we are both the smelly vomititious consequence of perfection and the infinite creative sensation of love.

[Mad_Michael]

Now this something which defies description decided to vomit. It vomited bits of itself out word, maybe in disgust, maybe in a fit of loneliness, maybe in a fit of sheer insanity from being alone or because because it was everything it was nothing.

By vomiting and projecting bits of itself out of itself it created an infinite exercise of these bits of vomit or projectile hurling outwords in a free fall.

Thus, the universe you describe has a beginning.

Now these quadrazillions of vomit particles expelled just like a sneeze just go on their merry way and each particle experiences as its own God or creator creating its own universes.

This is rather colourful and creative. Defies physics, but what the heck since we're just having fun here.

So to try trace back these pieces of vomit to their source is impossible because the process never ends.

Not true. The source is that "something which defies description" who decided to vomit.

What if you are this thing and you are absolutely psychotic and everything else is simply you hallucinating?

A colourful twist upon the long established philosophic idea of solepscism.

I'll refrain from further comment here. After someone goes solepscist, further discussion is useless.

[AndrewL]

He hates all religion, no doubt, but his premises are all misguided. I have a friend that's an athiest biologist, a big fan of Dawkin's work in what he actually does, and he will even tell you that the way to 'fight' the existance of God definitely doesn't involve Dawkin's logic.

Can you give me an example of one of Dawkins' premisies that are misguided?

Andrew

[Mad_Michael]

Can you give me an example of one of Dawkins' premisies that are misguided?

If not guided by God, everything is misguided by definition. Such a supposition is rational and logical, if it is based upon a belief in God.

That being said, I commend your tact and shall share your vigil for the requested example.

[Electric Monk]

Good to see we're finally getting somewhere, isn't this nicer than that nastiness a page or so ago?

You tell me. You're the one who changed your tactics. I've changed nothing.

Please go back and read our exchanges again, this time with the knowledge that I had just entered the thread, had never insulted you, and was not trying to anger or dismiss you. Indeed your own post before my reply that you got so offended at contained hardly more than an assertion about faith, and a challenge to refute it. One of the problems with text, especially in a contentious forum like this one, is that intent can be misread depending on the mindset of the reader.

By your own admission you tend to "post on the fly" without providing explanation or support for your assertions, why not give someone the benefit of the doubt when they do the same? Reserve your vitriol for those who sling it. Whatever small condescension I have offered, you have earned with your words.

Contrary to what you presume, I actually am interested in what you have to say, which is why I keep asking questions. I am certainly not trying to play silly little word games with you, and would really like to know the answers to the questions I have asked you. I am here to exchange ideas.

[Mad_Michael]

I am here to exchange ideas.

Good. Then stop making the topic all about me. I find discussing philosophy much more interesting.