Religion Has Maciamo proved that God doesn't exist?

[Angela]

Yet again another flamboyant, ostentatious and clingy; misinformed analytical misinterpretation by the feminine-acting, possibly homosexual; sheltered from-the real-world, mama's boy Maleth.

Leave people's sexual orientation out of it, or you're out. Comprenez?

 

[sparkey]

Leave people's sexual orientation out of it, or you're out. Comprenez?

I personally couldn't leave that one without an infraction. He's out.

 

[Maleth]

It would be something decent that atheists and non-believers do not start to call names other people who are non-atheists.
It is easy to blame the religion for what people are doing.
Well most Bolsheviks were atheists and Bolshevisms is known for so many atrocities.
Can you people who are atheists explain this?
Not to mention that World War II was not a religious war,it had to do with other things.

One does not justify the other....that is for sure. The only difference is some people do atrocities because they say they personally believe in them on a human level, like in the many non religious atrocities including the ones you mentioned including Nazism and others of course.

While religious atrocities are justified through a higher divine authority (the Kind of its not me who is saying it but the supreme). Having said that many Religions (including Islam) do strive in their own way to deal with a softer approach with various interpretations to neutralize the more violent aspects of religions. But one has to understand that its not an easy thing to do when its all Black on white. Probably if we go according to texts and interpretations Christianity has the easiest way out through the perfectioning exercise visa vi extremists books from the so called 'old covenant'. However this did not stop Christianity from performing atrocities in the name of Religion (mostly in the past).And I dont need to say but look what is happening today with the type of Islam focusing on the violent side of its texts.

 

[Tomenable]

This is a very interesting but lengthy (over 50 pages) discussion on God's existence or lack of such:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=542927

 

[mihaitzateo]

This thread is non-sense.
And I could not care more or less about what Maciamo thinks about God existence.
All those atheists who think Christians are dumb,should stop use alternative current since the methods of generating and transporting alternative current are coming from Nicolas Tesla ,who a very mystical person,Christian orthodox.
Let us take on the other way,how many of the people from the world ever heard of Maciamo?

Now,how many heard about Newton who was also Christian?
I think all people learn in the school about Newton,at physics.
So,you Atheists, I am not trying to impose what I believe to you,while you are aggressive and try to impose to other people to not believe in God and so on.

 

[Maleth]

So,you Atheists, I am not trying to impose what I believe to you,while you are aggressive and try to impose to other people to not believe in God and so on.

Good on you as unfortunately in 2015 we have Religious bullies murdering people in the name of religion (or what they perceive as the righteous way of god), but im not aware of any atheist doing the same. Hope this will not be necessary any more in the near future.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Good on you as unfortunately in 2015 we have Religious bullies murdering people in the name of religion (or what they perceive as the righteous way of god), but im not aware of any atheist doing the same. Hope this will not be necessary any more in the near future.

You need to think of something new, because almost everything you use religious extremist as an argument to caste general negativity against religion. This is the exception not the rule, and doesn't represent any religious people here.

 

[Maleth]

You need to think of something new, because almost everything you use religious extremist as an argument to caste general negativity against religion. This is the exception not the rule, and doesn't represent any religious people here.

I dont think its a matter of thinking, its a matter of analizing facts and be bold enough to face them without too much beating round the bush, as the proverb says. Lets face it not many people are willing to give rational and logical explanations. However I do understand the frustration for genuine peace loving people who for some weird reason find it difficult to disassociate themselves with violent religions texts. At the end of the day its just a matter of choice. I assure you I did not invent them

 

[Fire Haired14]

I dont think its a matter of thinking, its a matter of analizing facts and be bold enough to face them without too much beating round the bush, as the proverb says. Lets face it not many people are willing to give rational and logical explanations. However I do understand the frustration for genuine peace loving people who for some weird reason find it difficult to disassociate themselves with violent religions texts. At the end of the day its just a matter of choice. I assure you I did not invent them

This what I mean, you need to get rid of this biased attitude. You're not going to come up with good conclusions, because you already have one set no matter what the evidence says. The fact is most religious people are not violent-nuts and most religions don't support violent-nuts. You have very offensive and inaccurate assumptions about religious people that need to change.

 

[Maleth]

This what I mean, you need to get rid of this biased attitude. You're not going to come up with good conclusions, because you already have one set no matter what the evidence says. The fact is most religious people are not violent-nuts and most religions don't support violent-nuts. You have very offensive and inaccurate assumptions about religious people that need to change.

I know whats written in religious text. Do you? You and everyone else can read it too. Its even claimed to be undisputable and also holy. Are you suggesting I should ignore the offensive religious literature and yet be part of it? What is the evidence?

 

[sparkey]

This is degenerating into a debate over whether religious people behave well and have done good things. Although the effect of religiosity on behavior is a worthwhile subject on its own, it's completely tangential to the question of Maciamo's (9 year old) refutation of God's existence, which deals entirely with the nature of the universe and not with the nature of believers.

To me, effectively any appeal to universal properties to prove or refute the existence of god(s) will end up resulting in people talking past each other. Of course an atheist is likely to view universal properties differently than a theist. Gods in general have unfalsifiability baked into their mythos. So what if an atheist claims that a god seems to fit poorly into the universe, or seems to violate the laws of nature? The theist can always respond to such a claim by saying that their god is beyond nature, or does things that are beyond human comprehension. The most interesting question, then, isn't whether or not any god fits what we know about the universe. That discussion won't get us anywhere. The more interesting question is why gods are defined as they are, and what that tells us about those who define them. That gets into interesting questions of why people believe what they believe, and from there we can start deducing whether it's more likely that gods are real, or if they're a product of human invention.

 

[Fire Haired14]

I know whats written in religious text. Do you? You and everyone else can read it too. Its even claimed to be undisputable and also holy. Are you suggesting I should ignore the offensive religious literature and yet be part of it? What is the evidence?

A few texts don't make an entire religion and its followers violent-nuts. The vast majority of religious people don't follow whatever those few texts say, or think they have a good reason in other texts not to. The everyday religious person is against such texts. You know this. Don't allow a few texts cause you to have unjustified views about the millions of followers.

 

[Maleth]

This is degenerating into a debate over whether religious people behave well and have done good things. Although the effect of religiosity on behavior is a worthwhile subject on its own, it's completely tangential to the question of Maciamo's (9 year old) refutation of God's existence, which deals entirely with the nature of the universe and not with the nature of believers.

To me, effectively any appeal to universal properties to prove or refute the existence of god(s) will end up resulting in people talking past each other. Of course an atheist is likely to view universal properties differently than a theist. Gods in general have unfalsifiability baked into their mythos. So what if an atheist claims that a god seems to fit poorly into the universe, or seems to violate the laws of nature? The theist can always respond to such a claim by saying that their god is beyond nature, or does things that are beyond human comprehension. The most interesting question, then, isn't whether or not any god fits what we know about the universe. That discussion won't get us anywhere. The more interesting question is why gods are defined as they are, and what that tells us about those who define them. That gets into interesting questions of why people believe what they believe, and from there we can start deducing whether it's more likely that gods are real, or if they're a product of human invention.

In my opinion very few people who claim to be part of any religion go into any depth to understand the god/gods of their religion, very often (to keep it simple) is that they find god/gods a supreme being an illusionary perception in the eyes of an atheist, were one can make some kind of ritual to seek forgiveness or acquire some kind of power and blame the ills of someone or a society on ways not approved by the supreme being. In many cases a devil is also created were one can pour all the blame on this other dark power who is in a constant struggle with the supreme being.

Texts however matter immensely as its the road map of any religion which is based on a particular god/gods of the believers. In my opinion god/gods are defined as a reflection of a persons thought and inner struggles woven with the mysteries that humans still cannot comprehend that were much more accentuated when communities had more time on their hands to ponder and think without having to focus on where the next meal would be coming from.

 

[Maleth]

The vast majority of religious people don't follow whatever those few texts say, or think they have a good reason in other texts not to. The everyday religious person is against such texts. You know this. Don't allow a few texts cause you to have unjustified views about the millions of followers.

Nice way to see it, so maybe the so called 'holy books' should be altered to make more sense and be less hypocritical, without having the obsession as often echoed that none of it can be changed. Its either one or the other, no real need for the hysteria one sees when religious matters are discussed.

 

[LeBrok]

This is degenerating into a debate over whether religious people behave well and have done good things. Although the effect of religiosity on behavior is a worthwhile subject on its own, it's completely tangential to the question of Maciamo's (9 year old) refutation of God's existence, which deals entirely with the nature of the universe and not with the nature of believers.

To me, effectively any appeal to universal properties to prove or refute the existence of god(s) will end up resulting in people talking past each other. Of course an atheist is likely to view universal properties differently than a theist. Gods in general have unfalsifiability baked into their mythos. So what if an atheist claims that a god seems to fit poorly into the universe, or seems to violate the laws of nature? The theist can always respond to such a claim by saying that their god is beyond nature, or does things that are beyond human comprehension. The most interesting question, then, isn't whether or not any god fits what we know about the universe. That discussion won't get us anywhere. The more interesting question is why gods are defined as they are, and what that tells us about those who define them. That gets into interesting questions of why people believe what they believe, and from there we can start deducing whether it's more likely that gods are real, or if they're a product of human invention.

To play devil's advocate, I'd say there always will be similarity between god and human, because human was created in god's image. And not because human invented god.

 

[sparkey]

To play devil's advocate, I'd say there always will be similarity between god and human, because human was created in god's image. And not because human invented god.

The idea of man being created in god's image does span multiple religions, and seems to me to be a common way for religions to explain why their gods are almost always personable. I think it's absolutely possible to tackle this directly, by asking which is more likely: a god created man in his image and man has since correctly imagined god(s) as personable, or man creates gods as personable through natural tendencies? The easy answer to me is to appeal to evolution, which clearly shows that human ancestors were not always personable, and therefore man does not derive such an attribute from any god. And even if we dismiss that by arguing that a god could have used evolution and other natural conditions as a means to developing man to become godlike, there's still the question of why the properties of gods differ so much across cultures. If people naturally tend to imagine gods as personable supernatural entities, I think we'd expect exactly what we see: A multitude of stories to explain all sorts of phenomena and to satisfy answers about the human condition. If a god created man in his image, what we see raises more questions than it answers, like why almost all people would get it right to imagine god(s) as personable, while most get the related stories completely wrong.

 

[LeBrok]

The idea of man being created in god's image does span multiple religions, and seems to me to be a common way for religions to explain why their gods are almost always personable. I think it's absolutely possible to tackle this directly, by asking which is more likely: a god created man in his image and man has since correctly imagined god(s) as personable, or man creates gods as personable through natural tendencies? The easy answer to me is to appeal to evolution, which clearly shows that human ancestors were not always personable, and therefore man does not derive such an attribute from any god. And even if we dismiss that by arguing that a god could have used evolution and other natural conditions as a means to developing man to become godlike, there's still the question of why the properties of gods differ so much across cultures

It excludes existence of one god, but flows with idea of many unique gods very well. As gods differ from one another so do religions and human beliefs.

If people naturally tend to imagine gods as personable supernatural entities, I think we'd expect exactly what we see: A multitude of stories to explain all sorts of phenomena and to satisfy answers about the human condition. If a god created man in his image, what we see raises more questions than it answers, like why almost all people would get it right to imagine god(s) as personable, while most get the related stories completely wrong.

Sometimes I think that multitude of Super Heroes in today's comics and movies points the the subcontinents base of human spirituality. They resemble so much the gods of Greek, Romans, Hinduism and almost all polytheistic religions. Gods with human characters and emotions, combined with super powers of gods/super heroes. We might be dealing with same phenomenon under different name.
Who knows, possibly first gods took shape from story telling talents of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Once the fire was tamed, their long evenings around the fire gave them opportunity for entertainment, singing and story telling. The times when first singers, actors, idols and preachers took the stage.

Was Iliad a first comic book, where Superhero, and half god, Hercules saved Greeks and Civilization?

 

[sparkey]

It excludes existence of one god, but flows with idea of many unique gods very well. As gods differ from one another so do religions and human beliefs.

I'd hasten to add that we don't just see many different gods, but we see many different contradictory gods. It would definitely be a challenge to the atheist position if all of the world's gods could be easily reconciled. Of course, there have been attempts to reconcile them nonetheless, like saying that different aspects of different gods present themselves to different cultures; some gods are more jealous than others and like to convince their followers that they're the only god; that there are evil forces as well that manipulate human belief; etc. But I'm looking for the simplest explanation, and clearly we're deviating from that.

Sometimes I think that multitude of Super Heroes in today's comics and movies points the the subcontinents base of human spirituality. They resemble so much the gods of Greek, Romans, Hinduism and almost all polytheistic religions. Gods with human characters and emotions, combined with super powers of gods/super heroes. We might be dealing with same phenomenon under different name.
Who knows, possibly first gods took shape from story telling talents of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Once the fire was tamed, their long evenings around the fire gave them opportunity for entertainment, singing and story telling. The times when first singers, actors, idols and preachers took the stage.

Was Iliad a first comic book, where Superhero, and half god, Hercules saved Greeks and Civilization?

I think you're onto something here. Is it a coincidence that one of the most popular superheroes out there right now is Thor?

 

[Voyager]

God Exist simply because we Exist. It 's only a question of pure logic.
First of All, we have two choices: The world is insane or not?

If we choose it's insane, we are may be mentaly ill, the game is over.

If we choose no the World is not insane then the World is completly explainable. This implies the causality law: one effect has at least one cause. Then the ultimate cause is God.

God is cause of itself by definition otherwise the World is insane or completly inexplainable. Since we choose it's completly explainable, God is necessarily cause of itself.

God is little bit like Infinity in Maths. We need infinity otherwise Math is not completly explainable. Same rationale, We need God otherwise the World is not completly explainable or Reasonable except if we are illogical or insane.
My thinking of the Day.

 

[LeBrok]

God Exist simply because we Exist. It 's only a question of pure logic.
1st we have two choices: 1 The world is insane or not? If we choose it's insane, you are may be mentaly ill and the game is over.
If we choose no then the World is explainable this imply the causality law, one effect has at least one cause. Then the ultimate cause is God.
God is cause of itself by definition otherwise the World is insane or inexplainable. Since we choose it's explainable, God is necessarily cause of itself.
God is little bit the Infinity in Maths. We need infinity otherwise Math is not completly explainable. Same We need Gos otherwise the World is not completly explainable except if you are insane.

By this logic, same applies to God, if you can't explain God's existence it doesn't exist. There is also a serious glitch here. We can physically prove world's existence but not God's existence. We can easily claim that Santa Claus with natural powers created Universe for purpose of making people happy. We are in no position to prove or disprove that claim. In this case let's stick to what we can measure.