Another religious thread of speculation

David777 said:
IMO, the OP Reddit link statement was an example of someone with hateful emotional ideas and flawed thought processes blabbering without much wisdom. The Reddit post primed his agenda with paragraphs of various facts and then ended with two overstated rigid sentences that were really just a way to bash ALL those who believe (in any religion) widely , name calling with "criminal", "elitists" "gullible", and then blame them for a lack of world peace as though it is the prime reason anthropologists would just laugh at. The Reddit person is a excellent example of an emotional someone to ignore because they probably cannot discuss issues in balanced ways.

So not a thread I initially thought was worth posting on and then others just used it as an excuse to discuss atheists generally.

Any adult person who cannot accept the reality that people throughout Human history just really enjoy making stuff up are in some state of cognitive dissonance (denial), arrested development (gullible) or they are aware of what they are doing because they are a criminal exploiting the naive congregations that you commonly find in places of worship all around the world.

All religions are elitists, if they weren't, then they would not have a false-dichotomy to believe in the first place. For this reason, religions are not all-inclusive and therefore incompatible with things like World Peace (which is necessarily all-inclusive).

Thread was then followed up with a few members that probably didn't read the OP's nonsense, talking
  • generally about atheist attitudes
  • does god exists
  • does god have gender
  • beliefs are due to culture or genetics

Problem with threads like this I've criticized in the past, is they begin poorly posed without adequate focus and then SF members go off discussing several different issues creating confusion. If people want to talk about religion so much, why not craft an OP narrowly among a long list, like:
  • Does god, for those that think he exists, have a gender?
  • How does science not support or support the notion a god exists?
  • Why do anthropologists think civilizations create the notion of gods?
  • Why are rigid atheists and rigid theists unable to discuss god without becoming emotional and illogical?
Click to expand...
The real problem is that there are so many facts surrounding us that unless you are not looking they will escape you.
Why make things up? You don't have to. The sun comes up every morning, The trees produce oxygen, and take in co2 to produce more oxygen.
Why does the sun come up????????
I can go on but I don't think it matters.
Does God have a gender? no! He is GOD
Science cannot delve into or research the existence of God.
What is an elitist?
What is world peace?
Who do you reach for when you are lost?
 

JustDave said:
Tread drift is common in all forums. There are no rules against it. I wonder how many threads in this forum pass the coherence test, anyway? And what are the standards that must be met?
Click to expand...

Most forums do have rules about staying on topic.

Although admittedly what the topic is exactly in this one is hard to follow.
 
Paco Dennis said:
If the belief in God were to be put on trial, and the best of the best represented opposing sides, then how do you think the judge would rule? Would he rule for the Plaintiff, claiming that God exists. Would the judge rule that the defense claiming the is no god win? Certainly, the Plaintive would not win for lack of evidence. But it is not clear, because of the testimonies for God existing were so many that the judge considered the weight of people's personal experience. Even though it being anecdotal, it was consistent in many important ways.

So, the judge, after much deliberation, declared that God is not provable, but he also cannot rule that he doesn't. Which is also the way the laws of our land are conducted when the subject is under question. It remains agnostic. Neutral, almost to the point of assigning it to being irrelevant to the decisions.
Click to expand...
God would threaten the jurors with eternal damnation if they didn't rule in his favor.
 

Inept said:
I assume you have proof that she existed, right? Birth certificat, marriage liscense, photos, etc.
Click to expand...
bobcat said:
Well, her body washed up on shore 4 months later, so pretty sure she existed.
Click to expand...
That is the point that the analogy disregards. You have scientifically and forensically proven that the woman (and presumably the cookie) existed so the trial may proceed from which circumstantial evidence and witnesses may be useful. But a million people who have claimed to have spoken with God doesn’t constitute witness accounts if you have no evidence of God existing. THAT is my point. If you are unsure you can scroll up and trace it.
 
Witnesses who give testimony at trial such as having seen the cookie. l don't expect you to understand, so don't worry about it. Stop being a pretend airhead. That's no way to go through life or a discussion forum. What a waste of time.
 
Olivia said:
Witnesses who give testimony at trial such as having seen the cookie. l don't expect you to understand, so don't worry about it. Stop being a pretend airhead. That's no way to go through life or a discussion forum. What a waste of time.
Click to expand...
If you want to continue it's up to you but it won't be my time wasted in any depth.
 
Last edited:
Inept said:
Good bye, indeed.
Click to expand...
I feel a little responsible, bringing up the invisible cookie thing. Sorry. It is hard to argue that a cookie exists, therefore the testimonies are all about a fake cookie. and the could be, and probably a valid legal point. Proving that the thing on trial is indeed "real". I get it. I am sure that many of the trials we have are based on trying to prove that "what is on trial", is actually real or not. Real question now. I this like trying to prove murder without a corpse?
 
Paco Dennis said:
I feel a little responsible, bringing up the invisible cookie thing. Sorry. It is hard to argue that a cookie exists, therefore the testimonies are all about a fake cookie. and the could be, and probably a valid legal point. Proving that the thing on trial is indeed "real". I get it. I am sure that many of the trials we have are based on trying to prove that "what is on trial", is actually real or not. Real question now. I this like trying to prove murder without a corpse?
Click to expand...
Oh, gosh,before l begin, l've been watching a crime show on cable. Someone.s been murdered and a friend/relative was asked if s/he (l wasn't watching very closely) had any enemies and the answer was no. Then the narrator,who is a journalist,
Commented that even if one has no enemies, there is always someone out there who doesn',t like you. Lovely thought.

About the cookie thing. I don't see the problem. You presented the argument very well. (And they could always bring the left over bag of chocolate cookies into the trial.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top