"jfr" <spam.the@bit.bucket> wrote in message news:...
"B. Corporel" <bcorp39874@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3ZHb.5963$xX.14762@attbi_s02...
"jfr" <spam.the@bit.bucket> wrote in message
news:bspf9n$2hn$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
...
I am open to
theories from both sides.
jfr
In this case it is all one-sided, since only one "side" has any "theory"
it
is promoting in this case: the theists. Atheism is simply an absence of
belief in the existence of gods, not any kind of "theory" standing in
need
of proof at all.
Hmm. Well, maybe yes if I was talking about theories about G-ds per se.
But I was talking about how people arrive at *general* decisions (incl.
whether G-d theories are valid or not) in what I thought was a fairly
neutral way. Mostly for my own entertainment really although if anyone
listens that's a bonus.
Anyway cheers for listening to whatever you did listen to.
I have finished yammering for the time being.
The theory in question is that a magic invisible creator of the universe
might exist who won't let you live forever if you if you don't believe
he
exists, without any logically satisfactory evidence at all. (Sounds
illogical, just plain silly, and childish on it's face, wouldn't you
agree?)
Yes I would agree. But this does not prove anything. Appeals to emotion
you know.
I actually expect that things are rather like in the "Re: What if God really
did exist?" posting. I shall attach a copy now in fact:
John Doe wrote:
- By virtue of his power and intelligence, his actions would be
incomprehensible to mere humans.
- His actions would probably appear random, except as seen in
the general laws of nature.
- He could not need or want anything from us.
- Any human definition of good and evil would cease to apply.
- The situation would be functionally the same as if no god exists or
per the deists.
It is certainly obvious that human-recognisable historical interventions (ie
in the
last few millenia) and even in our lifetimes by G-ds if they occurred at
all have had minimal effect.
Understanding not what he wants because obviously G-ds
by most people's stated definitions have no needs, but to get closer
to his understanding of things might be cool, whether G-ds
are imaginary or not. Fake sugar tastes as sweet as real to the
subconscious. Any hypnotist will tell you other similar things.
I would agree that most religious stories and such like are complete
nonsense
in terms of relevance to most people's ideas of morality or even logicality.
So this would indicate to me that most religious texts are largely tosh
[I am not saying they are tosh just that they appear to me to be tosh], but
I don't necessarily scrap the whole religion or teachings because of that.
I know people who attend religions just for the social aspects really.
I do not advocate such myself as different things suit different people
depending on where they are on Maslow's hierarchy of needs in different
contexts. They do not believe in the concept of a supernatural g-d but they
focus on the pleasanter aspects of the religion, and ignore the debatable
stuff.
Obviously they do not live in the US so the religious practice may have
a vastly different character, be less knee-jerk reaction oriented and not
as totalitarian or as linked to national politics in quite the same
way/extent. Cultural differences do make a big difference.
I imagine they keep going because they know people there rather than
because they believe it is of use to them.
So in effect I treat G-ds actual existence or lack of it (as John Doe says)
as functionally equivalent.
I guess you would say that the people currently supporting their religious
group
should stop so that it does not get too powerful and start to change in
character.
.
