Does God exist? (20 Viewers)

[Drsoccerball]

not it doesn't, because the least humble or modest wouldn't make an effort of saying it. that said you probably are very modest, and so probably is Paradoxica.

Edit 2:
The groundwork you needed is to justify the statement:
"First to start off we have to consider the fact that God sent a messenger/one who warns to every people to teach the religion of God and to also warn them of consequences if they are ignorant and deny etc... This is so that they can't say "we wern't warned," like many try to say after a test. "

Is to actually establish it is a fact, namely that a religious leader is indeed a messenger for God. That means a case for instance for Mohammed as a prophet, without reference to his revelation first. Not only, does that assume the responder has a similar understanding of God, which in the case of me might be ok, but not for pastafarians for instance.

oooo okay thanks will take on board next time !!!

 

[Paradoxica]

I feel this thread has been heavily offtopic'd and in trying to bring it back to its root I pose the following:

Those who are in the affirmative to the existence of a deity(s?) state your evidence, for the burden of proof is on your shoulder because the existence of a supernatural deity is not self-evident.

Before we proceed, you must define your personal sufficiency criteria for evidence.

 

[Drsoccerball]

I feel this thread has been heavily offtopic'd and in trying to bring it back to its root I pose the following:

Those who are in the affirmative to the existence of a deity(s?) state your evidence, for the burden of proof is on your shoulder because the existence of a supernatural deity is not self-evident.

Thank you. I tried many times to bring this back on to topic but I keep getting accusations so I must answer... Sorry for that will post soon.

Actually I want to hear Dan's proof first

 

[dan964]

The media... which media? Fox News? (lol)

But yes, I can see why that may be an issue, but satire is unavoidable when you have such...emotionally triggering... topics at hand.

Fox News I don't trust, so don't know.

52. In this connection, in accordance with the principle of an open attitude to the alternative theories advocated by the scientific creationists, and in order to show the illogicality of teaching intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution, a movement has, ironically, developed in the United States. The so-called Pastafarian movement supports the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Pastafarianism is a parody on religion created in response to the decision of the Kansas State Board of Education to permit the teaching of intelligent design in science courses on an equal footing with the theory of evolution. According to Pastafarianism, an invisible and omniscient being called the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe in one day. The supporters of Pastafarianism are demanding the same place in the school curricula as intelligent design. Full of irony, this pseudo-religion is setting a trend and the cult is spreading.

from http://web.archive.org/web/20130509...Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11751&Language=en
Its being moved, so hence the archived version

and http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm

Even HuffPost which isn't really my cup of tea either:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/13/jedis-and-pastafarians-re_n_925801.html?ir=Australia

Pastafarianism was founded in 2005 when Henderson, then a physics student, sent a letter to a Kansas school board satirically critiquing the theory of intelligent design by citing "evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.

 

[dan964]

Thank you. I tried many times to bring this back on to topic but I keep getting accusations so I must answer... Sorry for that will post soon.

Actually I want to hear Dan's proof first

I'll get to it soon.

"But since that was only for those people and that time(and most likely you'll agree) it doesn't apply for us" - but where is the justification. From my faith, the justification comes because Jesus fulfilled it.

You do seem to use that phrase a lot. The same phrase can be applied by atheists to Islam as much as any other religion. "But since that was only for those people and that time, religion doesn't apply for us" etc. A very slippery argument.

Discussing Mohammed's validity as a prophet is still relevant, because if he isn't a prophet, then the Islamic God cannot be the God that exists.
(And no Christians and Muslims don't believe in the same deity)

There are obvious many things I disagree in your last two replies, which I won't address now.

 

[dan964]

Evidence for God
For me personally, I find the best way to find evidence it involves looking at Jesus, his birth, life, miracles, death and resurrection; especially the resurrection.
Why you may ask? Because of his claims, namely to be God. When you examine these things, you can weigh up the claim of whether
what he is saying is true, if you come from a position without assuming a particular conclusion before proper examination, such that the
natural world is all that there is.

Edit: Now some people think that "God exists because the Bible says so..."
It is actually a different argument I am posing. I am not saying that because it is God's Word/revelation therefore it is true, therefore God must exist.

I am making no statement about whether the Gospel accounts are true or not (unlike those from other religions who normally would . It needs to be weighed, by critically studying the literature* and also by studying with reference to history from other sources.
*especially with the resurrection

My argument goes like this:
1. Jesus existed - verified fact.
2. Jesus claimed to be God - disputed* (DrSoccerball will dispute this and atheists might dispute this in similar ways but for different reasons).
3. Are his claims true? The character and actions do they verify them as true or not? (Actions speak louder then words)
Because if his claim is true, then God exists, otherwise it is inconclusive.

{1} is no debate, {2} is disputed mainly by those of different religions, {3} is mainly disputed by non-theists.

You end up concluding he either was lying, delusional or actually telling the truth, or you do what some people do and say that the religion was corrupted (like Islam says);

Yet the sources are accurate in recording and preserving the information, whether the information (referring to just the Gospel accounts and Acts firstly, not the whole Bible as that is a separate issue) recorded down originally whether that is true, is part of the examination process.

For me, no other religion has such this historical bearing in it, in that God himself becomes an active part of history. Whether it is actually the case, is the point of examination. And you can say, to a lesser degree with the other religions, this is usually the starting place.

I honestly think that most other arguments lead to a stalemate.
But we need to ask ourselves 7 questions:

• What is the really real? (God, gods, material world, the matrix)
• What is the nature of external reality; of the world around us? Created, accident, chaotic, orderly, matter or spirit, do we ‘make’ the world around us or does it have its own objective existence?
• What is a human being? Highly complex machine, naked ape, a sleeping God, made in God’s image
• What happens to a person at death? Extinction, absorption into the cosmos, transformation to a higher state, reincarnation, resurrection, ‘the other side’
• Why is it possible to know anything at all? Consciousness and rationality, an evolutionary development to help us survive; we are made in image of God
• How do we know what is right and wrong? Our own choices determine; we can vote on it; we can refer to an outside standard
• What is the meaning of human history? To realise the purposes of God or (the) gods; basically accidental and meaningless; it has the meaning we give it; to make the most people happy that we can.

Thomas Aquinas 1224-1274 (prominent medieval theologian/philosopher, popular with Roman-Catholics) put together five arguments together. (These aren't definitive proofs)
Two of these arguments are well known:
one is that cosmological argument and one is the teleological argument, or in layman's terms, the argument from first cause, and also argument from design. The other is a moral argument, usually by looking for some standard of moral absolutes; or origin of moral standards etc.

====

ORIGINAL REBUTTAL: Why you cannot use a religious text to prove God’s existence?
The claim here is that the religious text (Bible, Quran, etc) proves that God exists. This argument makes the fallacy of begging the question (or circular reasoning). When the argument is set out clearly this becomes obvious:
How do we know God exists? God exists because the Bible says so. Why should we believe the Bible? Because the Bible is the word of God. How do we know God exists? God exists because the Bible says so. Why should we believe the Bible? Because the Bible is the word of God.

Firstly I'd like to say that logic may exist for some religions (don't need to name them); and yes some Christians unfortunately use this "logic".
The starting point is actually to establish whether the Bible is true, or at the very least the 4 Gospel accounts and Acts as a starter. This is what I mentioned earlier.
But also if we assume that because this world is all there is, therefore miracles cannot happen or similar, therefore conclusively (eventually) God cannot exist. If we make an assumption that God doesn't exist, and therefore approach evidence to the contrary, it rarely would change our mind.
There is confirmation bias, which means when we look at something, even observing, we always try to justify something because it fits in with our understanding of the world. This means it is extremely difficult to look at something without bias. But doesn't mean we shouldn't.

ORIGINAL REBUTTAL: In response to: Every event has a cause. The universe itself had a beginning, so it must have had a first cause, which must have been a creator God.
1. The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe, that allow a universe without a first cause.
2. By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused.
3. This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.

<1> Unverified hypotheses such as alternative dimensions, multiverses or eternally oscillating universe, appear to be just be naturalistic "God-substitutes", there is less evidence than there is from the original argument. The apparent lack of cause may indeed suggest exceptions, exceptions that may not necessarily be testable. Again, picking for exceptions, is not a strong argument, considering that the laws of physics work in a predictable manner. The apparent lack of cause in some events suggests not a non-cause but rather that some exceptions appear to have no observable or at least physical cause or reason; even if it is not necessarily the case. Hence it is not a compelling argument to to say some event that appears to have no explainable cause within the mediums and methods of science, indeed has no cause.
Often some cosmologists have to change the definition of physicalness or nothingness, in order to justify their position. This is merely moving the goalposts (although they call it learning). But the problem is this would be okay, there would be justification. But arguing simply because the idea of intelligent designer etc. seems stupid, or that we want to explain everything naturalistically then is no better a justification then some of the creationist arguments for 6-day "literal-as-is" creation.
A better way of phrasing the argument, another way of putting it is, whatever begins to exist has a cause and since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. This is a question about existence and what produces existence.
This objection is basically that we have a uncritical acceptance of the idea that every effect must have a cause: Hume argued that this is psychological and not actual; that humans need to see cause and effect and so they see it when all we really see is things happening and in a sequence…not necessarily cause and effect…hard to prove causality (though we really do seem to think that way and this is the point/problem). The problem is that is also how we do science, by seeing it and observing patterns, sequences and order. We do not look at with the expectation, that the universe is unordered, but rather that it is and hence can be explained (within reason). (This rationality integillability of the world around us, namely more simply, the fact that the universe can be understood to some measure, is a good indicator of universe that is rational)

<2> Two things to clarify, one time did not begin with the universe, but with the causation of the universe, not exactly the same thing. Secondly, the effect is relative to the cause, because the cause produces or results in the effect, so technically the effect is defined with relation to the cause, i.e. afterward. There is no real issue here but semantics.
<3> Claim 3 in the original above is an unreasonable claim, it is like asking "Can God heat a burrito so hot, he cannot hold it?", "Can God create a square circle?". The second analogy given, demonstrates that it comes down to the very nature of God, i.e. divinity. The very idea of God, means a being without cause, because God is not of the same essence as the universe. Hence the "same reasoning" part in the claim falls apart, particularly if the creator God is radically different to the world. The justification why we stop at God and not a step earlier, is very part of the definition of God; if it wasn't. Since God is not physical, certainly not like the universe, it means that the same reasoning does not apply. It is not a case of special pleading, but actually more so an issue of definition. The real argument then comes down to whether the origins of the universe, originate in the meta-physical (by God/gods, or by metaphysical laws) or the physical* (*in some sense, i.e. multiverses, eternally oscillation). This claim is also very jumpy, and does not give much detail on the nature of such claims, for instance what does it mean that God is uncreated?
Lets presume that something made God, if he exists and is the cause of the universe, then that something would be superior to God, and hence actually be God. (Mind you cults, some pagan religions and Gnosticism, Arianism, JWs, all have this in common)
======

to be continued when I have more time...

 

[Drsoccerball]

I'll get to it soon.

"But since that was only for those people and that time(and most likely you'll agree) it doesn't apply for us" - but where is the justification. From my faith, the justification comes because Jesus fulfilled it.

You do seem to use that phrase a lot. The same phrase can be applied by atheists to Islam as much as any other religion. "But since that was only for those people and that time, religion doesn't apply for us" etc. A very slippery argument.

But the thing is no prophet ever claimed that they were for the whole mankind to come... Maybe if the Quran didn't have this claim then you can say the same thing about Islam.

"We have not sent you (O Muhammad) but as an unequalled mercy for all the worlds." 21:107

You may not call this sufficient proof but no one else had this said about them...

Jesus fulfilled it ? vat?

Discussing Mohammed's validity as a prophet is still relevant, because if he isn't a prophet, then the Islamic God cannot be the God that exists.
(And no Christians and Muslims don't believe in the same deity)

There are obvious many things I disagree in your last two replies, which I won't address now.

You're accusing him of lying when he was the most trustworthy even among his enemies... But let's leave that to one side and come back to the original topic.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Also you said we can't use the argument "God exists because of the Bible blah blah..." But your opening point was that you believe in God based on claims made in the Bible. I like how you covered the points in detail unlike me ... Also since you logically explained how God exist can you also now try to prove logically how God can have a son.

 

[dan964]

Also you said we can't use the argument "God exists because of the Bible blah blah..." But your opening point was that you believe in God based on claims made in the Bible. I like how you covered the points in detail unlike me ... Also since you logically explained how God exist can you also now try to prove logically how God can have a son.

<1> If God can see without eyes, can hear without ears, and speak without a tongue, then he can have a son without a wife. We've have lots of discussion over this already.

<2> "God exists because of the Bible blah blah..." well if you actually quoted in full, you'll see the case I put is not the same.
The case I was refuting is "God exists because religious text (Bible/Quran/Vedas) says so, and the religious text is true because it is the word of God/Allah/Brahman etc.). You have to actually establish the claims of the text to be true another way. Mind you the Bible, isn't actually a single text, but 66 separate texts.

This actually means examining the claims of Jesus; because if true, then it already leads to God's existence, but the claims are testable in the sense, that Jesus being God, means that God has broken into history for all (for scrutiny). < That is how Christians, like myslef would explain it

The argument is "God exists because of the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it is God's word etc. etc."
What i am saying is if one can examine the claims of Jesus i.e. the first 5 books of the New Testament and establish them to be true, then you have proof of God existing. The argument I said no-one couldn't use also applies to the Quran as well, you cannot assume its truthfulness, that is why you can assume its true because you have affirmed is as true. The real question is can we justify the truthfulness of the account.

Well the Quran teaches explicitly that Jesus didn't die on the cross, in direct contradiction with non Christian sources. Why it (Quran) says this? Don't know. But all it means I am less likely to rely on the Quran which is 600 years later, for information about Jesus, then the account of Mark or Luke for instance which date within 40-50 years of the event.

 

[dan964]

But the thing is no prophet ever claimed that they were for the whole mankind to come... Maybe if the Quran didn't have this claim then you can say the same thing about Islam.

"We have not sent you (O Muhammad) but as an unequalled mercy for all the worlds." 21:107

Well; Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." - Every religion has exclusive claims, no-one is denying that.

"(Mohammed) You are only a Warner and for every nation there is a guide." (S 13:7)
"And we have sent no messenger but with the language of his people, that he might make (the message) clear for them." (S14:4)

"And this (Quran) is a blessed book which we have revealed, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, so that you (O prophet) may warn the mother of the cities (Makkah) and those around her." (S6:92)
"And thus we have revealed to you an Arabic Quran, so that you may warn the mother of the cities (Makkah) and those around her." (S42:7)
The principle given by the Quran here proves that as per his own standards Mohammed can only be a guide for his nation i.e. Arabs.
The above verses clearly show that Mohammed claims to have received a revelation in Arabic to warn people of Makkah and those living close to it, of course the Arabic speaking people.

Jesus fulfilled it ? vat?

http://www.gotquestions.org/Lord-of-the-Sabbath.html
There are certain aspects of the Law that Jesus fulfilled. Interestingly, most concepts of the Law/Judaism such as the Atonement etc. are present still or explained in Christianity, but unusually missing in Islam.

You're accusing him of lying when he was the most trustworthy even among his enemies

- Doubt he was trustworthy, especially in the context of war. The Quran says very little of Mohammed, so what does the Haddith say then? Or do you want me to quote it?


Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab)." The Prophet said, "You may say it." … So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and said to them, "When Ka'b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head." Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "I have never smelt a better scent than this." Ka'b replied. "I have got the best ‘Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka'b, "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka’b said, "Yes." Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka'b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka'b said, "Yes." When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369)


When Kaybar[sic] had been conquered al-Hajjaj b. ‘Ilat al-Sulami of the clan al-Bahz said to the apostle, ‘I have money with my wife Umm Shayba d. Abu Talha–when they lived together he had a son called Mur‘id by her– and money scattered among the Meccan merchants, so give me permission to go and get it.’ Having got his permission he said, ‘I must tell lies.’ The Apostle said, ‘TELL THEM.’ Al-Hajjaj, ‘When I came to Mecca, I found in the pass of al-Bayda some men of Quraysh trying to get news and asking how the apostle fared because they had heard that he had gone to Khaybar. They knew that it was the principal town of Hijaz in fertility, fortifications, and population, and they were searching for news and interrogating passing riders. They did not know that I was a Muslim and when they saw me they said, "It is al-Hajjaj b. ‘Ilat. He is sure to have news. Tell us, O Abu Muhammad, for we have heard that the highwayman has gone to Khaybar which is the town of the Jews and the garden of the Hijaz." I said, "I have heard that and I have some news that will please you." They came up eagerly on either side of my camel, saying, "Out with, Hajjaj!" I said, "He has suffered a defeat such as you have never heard of and his companions have been slaughtered; you have never heard the like, and Muhammad has been captured." The men of Khaybar said, "We will not kill him until we send him to Mecca abd let them kill him among themselves in revenge for their men whom he has killed." They got up and shouted in Mecca, "Here’s news for you! You have only to wait for this fellow Muhammad to be sent to you to be killed in your midst." I said, "Help me collect my money in Mecca and to get in the money owed to me, for I want to go to Khaybar to get hold of the fugitives from Muhammad and his companions before the merchants get there". They got up and collected my money for me quicker than I could have supposed possible. I went to my wife and asked her for the money which she had by her, telling her that I should probably go to Khaybar and seize the opportunity to buy before the merchants got there first. When ‘Abbas heard the news and heard about me he came and stood at my side as I was in one of the merchants’ tents, asking about the news which I had brought. I asked him if he could keep a secret if I entrusted it to him. He said he could, and I said, "Then wait until I can meet you privately, for I am collecting my money as you see me, so leave (T. and he left me) until I have finished"; and so, when I had collected everything I had in Mecca and decided to leave, I met ‘Abbas and said, "Keep my story secret for three nights, then say what you will for I am afraid of being pursued." When he said that he would, I said, "I left your brother’s son married to the daughter of their king, meaning Safiya, and Khaybar has been conquered and all that is in it removed and become the property of Muhammad and his companions." He said, "What are you saying, Hajjaj?" I said, "Yes, by Allah, but keep my secret. I have become a Muslim and have come only to get my money fearing that I may be deprived of it. When three nights have passed publish the news as you will." When the third day came ‘Abbas put on a robe of his and scented himself and took his stick, and went to Ka‘ba and went round it. When the people saw him they said, "O Abu’l-Fadl, this is indeed steadfastness in a great misfortune!" He answered, "By no means, by Allah by whom you swear, Muhammad has conquered Khaybar and was left married to the daughter of their king. He has seized all that they possess and it is now his property and the property of his companions." They asked, "Who brought you this news?" He said, "the man who brought you your news. He came in to you as a Muslim and has taken his money and gone off to join Muhammad and his companions and to be with him." They said, "O men of Allah, the enemy of Allah has escaped. Had we known we would have dealt with him." Almost at once the true news reached them.’ (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], pp. 519-520)


Narrated Zahdam: We were in the company of Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari and there were friendly relations between us and this tribe of Jarm. Abu Musa was presented with a dish containing chicken. Among the people there was sitting a red-faced man who did not come near the food. Abu Musa said (to him), "Come on (and eat), for I have seen Allah's Apostle eating of it (i.e. chicken)." He said, "I have seen it eating something (dirty) and since then I have disliked it, and have taken an oath that I shall not eat it." Abu Musa said, "Come on, I will tell you (or narrate to you). Once I went to Allah’s Apostle with a group of Al-Ash'ariyin, and met him while he was angry, distributing some camels of Rakat. We asked for mounts but he took an oath that he would not give us any mounts, and added, ‘I have nothing to mount you on.’ In the meantime some camels of booty were brought to Allah's Apostle and he asked twice, ‘Where are Al-Ash'ariyin?" So he gave us five white camels with big humps. We stayed for a short while (after we had covered a little distance), and then I said to my companions, ‘Allah's Apostle has forgotten his oath. By Allah, if we do not remind Allah's Apostle of his oath, we will never be successful.’ So we returned to the Prophet and said, ‘O Allah's Apostle! We asked you for mounts, but you took an oath that you would not give us any mounts; we think that you have forgotten your oath.’ He said, ‘It is Allah Who has given you mounts. By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427)

Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Samura:
The Prophet said, "O 'Abdur-Rahman! Do not seek to be a ruler, for if you are given authority on your demand then you will be held responsible for it, but if you are given it without asking (for it), then you will be helped (by Allah) in it. If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 260)

DrSoccerball, feel free to PM me a reply. Just link this post.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Will reply later tired.

 

[dan964]

Will reply later tired.

no rush

 

[braintic]

Okay, so the claim would be that Islam and all other "monotheistic" religions copied Zoroastrianism. First to start off we have to consider the fact that God sent a messenger/one who warns to every people to teach the religion of God and to also warn them of consequences if they are ignorant and deny etc... This is so that they can't say "we wern't warned," like many try to say after a test. (We can see this in normal exams were if they're not taught something they would think they would be unjustly treated.)

And therin they will cry aloud: "O our Lord! Take us out, we will do good, (righteous deeds), not (the wrong) we use to do before," "Did We not grant you a life long enough for whoever would reflect and be mindful to reflect and be mindful? In addition, a warner came to you(to warn against this punishment). Taste then (the consequences of your heedlessness); for the wrongdoers have none to help them (against it)." 35:37

Now here's where you call bs about how disbelieving is such a despised sin here is a summary :

• Disbelief is an unforgivable ingratitude in the face of infinite divine favours;
• A limitless disrespect to God and His Attributes
• A rejection of, and contempt for, the innumerable signs of God in the universe;
• An accusation of lying and deceit against numberless beings who have believed in God, among whom are angels, righteous and believing humans beings, more than a hundred thousand prophets, and millions of saints, honourable scholars whom never lie.
• An everlasting destruction of human conscience, which has been created for eternity and, therefore, aspires to it.

God sent down only one religion but allowed it to be changed by humans because it was only meant for those people and that specific time period. (While leaving the religion in its complete form when humanity was ready for its message AKA Islam. This is the Islam (we believe) that all the Holy prophets followed.(Dan would disagree).)

So it is very possible that this religion was sent down by God so it may show some similarities like Islam shows with Christianity. But since we don't know for certain we can't claim it to be the case. Also according what Dan said it can also be disputed.


How is this related to my first question?

You clearly didn't understand the point of my question. I wasn't claiming or implying that the big 3 religions are derived from Zoroastrianism (neither am I saying they are not - it just wasn't my point here).

My question was basically - do you think Zoroastrianism is BS? I also asked you to justify your response without reference to your own religion, and that means without referring to any concepts that are specific to your religion or its relatives. Any attempt to use another religion to answer this question would be interpreted as "I think Zoroastrianism is BS because it opposes what my religion teaches me, and I know my religion is the correct one" - in other words, avoid circular reasoning.

 

[dan964]

You clearly didn't understand the point of my question. I wasn't claiming or implying that the big 3 religions are derived from Zoroastrianism (neither am I saying they are not - it just wasn't my point here).

My question was basically - do you think Zoroastrianism is BS? I also asked you to justify your response without reference to your own religion, and that means without referring to any concepts that are specific to your religion or its relatives. Any attempt to use another religion to answer this question would be interpreted as "I think Zoroastrianism is BS because it opposes what my religion teaches me, and I know my religion is the correct one" - in other words, avoid circular reasoning.

Well isn't that the point of comparative religion; everyone will always compare it to their standpoint, even if one is non-religious (unlike myself) which isn't a neutral standpoint either. I think this belief system is wrong because it opposes what my ideaology teaches me and I know the ideaology I follow is true.

It is not circular, but it is hardly a convincing argument because it kinda is reduced slightly to opinion but also is irrelevant to some one from a completely different worldview, who would possibly view both as right or both as wrong.

e.g. This is circular:
1. My religion says that all other religions are false
2. Therefore my religion is true because all other religions are false (which I get from the religion telling me), so I hence can trust #1 to be true.

which is not the same as:
1. My religion is true (irrelevant whether proven or not)
2. Therefore as this religion contradicts my religion (or opposes) therefore it is false to some measure.

Unfortunately it doesn't make a convincing argument for someone who disputes #1. And in some measure, is a matter of preference.

 

[dan964]

You clearly didn't understand the point of my question. I wasn't claiming or implying that the big 3 religions are derived from Zoroastrianism (neither am I saying they are not - it just wasn't my point here).

My question was basically - do you think Zoroastrianism is BS? I also asked you to justify your response without reference to your own religion, and that means without referring to any concepts that are specific to your religion or its relatives. Any attempt to use another religion to answer this question would be interpreted as "I think Zoroastrianism is BS because it opposes what my religion teaches me, and I know my religion is the correct one" - in other words, avoid circular reasoning.

You asked what his opinion on Zoroastrianism's God effectively without referring to his own religion/worldview; which is like asking what is your opinion without referring to your viewpoint. Hmm.... !?!

 

[Paradoxica]

You asked what his opinion on Zoroastrianism's God effectively without referring to his own religion/worldview; which is like asking what is your opinion without referring to your viewpoint. Hmm.... !?!

No, it meant to evaluate it with all of your worldview except your personal religion. Which is rather difficult, if you ask me.

 

[nerdasdasd]

Beliving in god and thinking it exists is just like say ... Believing in ghosts , fortune telling and talking to deceased and whatnot.

Though the strongest example would be "good luck ". If you believe it ... It EXISTS.

Your faith is so strong that it instills in you a sense of presence that it exists.

After having said that. There is no right and wrong conclusive answer whether it exists (only personal refutation ).

Now onto my opinion , I respectful disagree with those that claim of it's existence because :
-a) anyone can write a *religious * book (cough cough Scientology )

-b) anyone can claim "it "exists and that they saw something

-c) the person that wrote the book may have been delusional

 

[Kaido]

Idk about you guys, but I believe we should get some fucking cheese pizza

 

[braintic]

You asked what his opinion on Zoroastrianism's God effectively without referring to his own religion/worldview; which is like asking what is your opinion without referring to your viewpoint. Hmm.... !?!

The point is that I was asked to justify why religion is BS.
If someone is permitted to say 'other religions are BS simply because mine is correct', then I should be permitted to say 'ALL religions are BS because my view of the universe (a purely scientific one) is correct.

The fact of the matter is that religion is not needed to explain the universe, and it doesn't do a very good job at it anyway because it depends on assumptions rather than observations. And honestly - the idea that I am supposed to suck up to some invisible being for no other reason than to satisfy its ego or face eternal damnation is just about the most grotesque idea there is.

And judging by the way this poll has been trickling from belief towards disbelief over the last 10 years, I'd say that 100 years from now organised religion will be nothing more than a curiosity. Tales of Christianity and Islam will probably seem to everybody just like tales of Zeus and Neptune (which is how it all appears to me right now). Education is gradually curing us of this pointless baggage.

 

[Paradoxica]

Education is gradually curing us of this pointless baggage.

That's IF we can get education to be universal. Which is a higher ambition than it seems.