Religious Beliefs

[Womble]

Atheists have to reject on a case by case basis.

Puh-lease. Show me an atheist who has drawn up a list of all existing religion and went through it on a case by case basis.

Without providing explicit attributes that a deity holds then there is nothing to reject. From my understanding of the term 'Theism', the major attributes that all Theistic deities must adhere to are:

Creator of the Universe
Can and has interacted with the Universe

Now, based on this definition I make the statement that there is no evidence to suggest that there exists a deity with those two attributes. The ability and will to interact with the universe, makes the statement of existence an inherently synthetic proposition and must therefore be proven empirically.

This statement is founded on a number of arbitrary implicit assumptions, most notably that the empirical proof must come in a form which you are capable of grasping. What you are really saying here is that only things observable by you can exist.

Its a logical fallacy. The burden of proof stands on the person making a positive statement of existence. I can claim anything exists, but you are free to disbelieve me automatically until I provide some evidence to support my claim.

It works quite well the other way round. I can believe whatever I want until you come up with a conclusive evidence against it... and for some time after that. I see no reason for the burden of proof to fall on me, since I am not out to convince you or anybody else. I find the subjective evidence in favor of the existence of God sufficient; if you do not accept my subjective view... oh well, don't let the door hit you on your way out of my synagogue.

Once again I disagree, we are dealing with one side which claims to have evidence and the other side which claims that the proposed evidence is not in fact, evidence. Not that it is insufficient.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. You are repeating my statement here, except that you've rephrased it in a more biased way meant to a priori delegitimize the opposing position.

[WingedPegasus]

The discovery of the Goa'uld, Ancients and the humans of the Milky Way (and Pegasus Galaxy) debunks that statement and invalidates the Bible.

Which is why Goa'uld, Ancients and humans on planets other than earth don't exist.

[Ltcolshepjumper]

Excatly what I was saying and way more concise and eloquent! Well done.
I agree entirely.


Inded. Well said.


Which isn't peer reviewed to my knowledge.

Dude, I could assert that Pink Unicorns are actually running on treadmills and powering all nuclear forcess... and I could use amazing and convincing arguments... but if there is no real evidence, only speculation, it isn't relavent. You are asserting information as an authority that is dubious in its accuracy at best.



Which is not substantiatable.


Then rape is not wrong. It gives the rapist a greater chance top reproduce and is thus a selective advantage to be good at raping.


It is immpossible. Morality is by deffinition exclussivistic and absolute. Oppinions can arise without God. Morality can not.


Nazis treated people within their own social group well also.


I love how you personify the universe.


What is wrong?


What is ewrong with that?


Ok. Then according to you, it is a valid belief that one can forcibly assault aw woman and force her into sexual intercourse against her will.
The only thing stopipng that is the oppinion of those around them.

Thank you for your clearity.


Morality is absolute.
Oppinions are not.

Oppinions hide actual morality. Or actual morality does not exist.
If God doesn't exist then there is no morality. Only oppinion.


Do NOT compare racism and beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. They can not be compared. It is dishonest to do so.


Do NOT compare racism and beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. They can not be compared. It is dishonest to do so.


Oh speak enbglish and be clear "moral exchange particle", that is just hot air to sound intelligent.

If there is no god, who would establish a standard for morality, then morality is not absolute.

[s09119]

If there is no god, who would establish a standard for morality, then morality is not absolute.

Of course morality is not absolute, we see that on Earth today. Different peoples, with gods or not, all have different morals and values. Religion helps shape a society's moral code, but morality CAN exist without it.

[Ltcolshepjumper]

and what is morality? What is good? what is evil? If you can't answer these questions definitively, then why in the world do we have a judicial system?

[jenks]

To protect people.

[Ltcolshepjumper]

actually, that's law enforcement. Why do we have a judicial system, that judges people based on biased morality?

[Gibsnag]

Puh-lease. Show me an atheist who has drawn up a list of all existing religion and went through it on a case by case basis.

That is not what I meant. Everyone, including yourself is an Atheist of some god or gods. You disbelieve in the god of Pastafarianism (I'm assuming). What I was saying is that each potential god (or set of gods, in Polytheism) will have a certain unique set of attributes assigned to them, otherwise they're equivalent. You automatically assume the non-existence of an infinite variety of gods which you've either not heard of or which no-one has thought up yet. I could think up a random deity now, and it would be just as valid as the Judeo/Christian God... until someone gives evidence to suggest that the Judeo/Christian God, with all its described attributes, exists.

This statement is founded on a number of arbitrary implicit assumptions, most notably that the empirical proof must come in a form which you are capable of grasping. What you are really saying here is that only things observable by you can exist.

No, only things observable and testable by the Scientific Method. Not by me, in the grand scheme of things I'm incredibly irrelevant and what I can grasp and observe is severely limited. If something is not falsifiable, then it is irrelevant.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." -Bertrand Russell

It works quite well the other way round. I can believe whatever I want until you come up with a conclusive evidence against it... and for some time after that. I see no reason for the burden of proof to fall on me, since I am not out to convince you or anybody else. I find the subjective evidence in favor of the existence of God sufficient; if you do not accept my subjective view... oh well, don't let the door hit you on your way out of my synagogue.

I'm not telling you what you can and can't believe, whatever fantasies you want to indulge in are no concern of mine. What I'm telling you is that, unless you also accept that the Pastafarian God and the Invisible Pink Unicorn are as valid and likely to exist as the Judeo/Christian one then you are being illogical. Now you can be as illogical as you want, but it does somewhat end the argument.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. You are repeating my statement here, except that you've rephrased it in a more biased way meant to a priori delegitimize the opposing position.

And your original statement wasn't bias? Give me a break. You were saying that I didn't consider your evidence 'sufficient'. Imo, there is no evidence to be 'insufficient'. We're both as bias as the other, because we both consider the other to be completely incorrect.

[jenks]

actually, that's law enforcement. Why do we have a judicial system, that judges people based on biased morality?

They're both there to protect people, generally. The judicial system has nothing to do with morality, acting immorally isn't illegal.

[Womble]

That is not what I meant. Everyone, including yourself is an Atheist of some god or gods. You disbelieve in the god of Pastafarianism (I'm assuming). What I was saying is that each potential god (or set of gods, in Polytheism) will have a certain unique set of attributes assigned to them, otherwise they're equivalent. You automatically assume the non-existence of an infinite variety of gods which you've either not heard of or which no-one has thought up yet. I could think up a random deity now, and it would be just as valid as the Judeo/Christian God... until someone gives evidence to suggest that the Judeo/Christian God, with all its described attributes, exists.

This explanation only goes to show by how many miles you are missing the point.

I am not an "atheist of some gods". I have, on the basis of evidence which I find sufficiently reliable, defined to myself a concept of what God is, and I do not accept the proposed variants of this concept which I consider incorrect. I do, however, remain squarely within the framework of theism. This is not equivalent to taking a qualitative leap of denying the existence of any and all gods altogether.

No, only things observable and testable by the Scientific Method. Not by me, in the grand scheme of things I'm incredibly irrelevant and what I can grasp and observe is severely limited.

But of course you mean observable by you. "Testable by the scientific method" is merely a fancy rephrasing of "made observable to you", because this is the only way for you to know the results of the said testing. The only reason you take the scientific method for an authority is because the results it yields eventually come in the form which is observable and understandable to you.

The sole difference between science and magic is whether or not we think we know how it works.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." -Bertrand Russell

Change the "ancient" to "modern" and this is precisely why most people believe in evolution. Russel was on to something, but he did not go far enough.

I'm not telling you what you can and can't believe, whatever fantasies you want to indulge in are no concern of mine. What I'm telling you is that, unless you also accept that the Pastafarian God and the Invisible Pink Unicorn are as valid and likely to exist as the Judeo/Christian one then you are being illogical. Now you can be as illogical as you want, but it does somewhat end the argument.

Of course I am being logical. My idea of God is not made up at random, it is supported by evidence from sources that I consider trustworthy. It so happens that the Bible isn't just another book for me as a descendant of those who lived it. I see no reason to doubt the uninterrupted tradition of 2000+ years that passed on to me the first-hand accounts of God's presence and actions. I trust this tradition for the same reason I trust my mom and dad. I don't expect everyone to believe the way I do any more than I expect them to consider my parents to be as special to them as they are to me. But don't come to me claiming that I am being illogical, especially when all you're offering instead is flimsy second-hand sophistry.

And your original statement wasn't bias? Give me a break. You were saying that I didn't consider your evidence 'sufficient'. Imo, there is no evidence to be 'insufficient'.

Sure there is evidence. As far as I am concerned, there's plenty. That you do not accept it as evidence is another matter entirely.

We're both as bias as the other, because we both consider the other to be completely incorrect.

Perhaps. But in that case, if you are at least aware of arguing from a biased perspective, it would be prudent of you to quit claiming axiomatic superiority of your beliefs over mine.

P.S. The individual who has to justify his existence by his own efforts is in eternal bondage to himself.

Eric Hoffer again. Gotta love the guy.

[SG-25CSAR]

That is not what I meant. Everyone, including yourself is an Atheist of some god or gods. You disbelieve in the god of Pastafarianism (I'm assuming). What I was saying is that each potential god (or set of gods, in Polytheism) will have a certain unique set of attributes assigned to them, otherwise they're equivalent. You automatically assume the non-existence of an infinite variety of gods which you've either not heard of or which no-one has thought up yet. I could think up a random deity now, and it would be just as valid as the Judeo/Christian God... until someone gives evidence to suggest that the Judeo/Christian God, with all its described attributes, exists.

These "gods" are false Idols. These gods are no fairy tales to anyone who fallows the God of Abraham. They are lies. So in a sense they do exist, but they are not really gods. They are nothing more than Stone, Gold, Wood, Silver, Copper, Bronze and color carved into various figures. They have Mouths but do not speak, Legs but do not walk and so on. So no, Womble is not any kind of Atheist nor am I.

No, only things observable and testable by the Scientific Method. Not by me, in the grand scheme of things I'm incredibly irrelevant and what I can grasp and observe is severely limited. If something is not falsifiable, then it is irrelevant.

Like in the Eyes of God and his laws? So to you God's laws are irrelevant as well as his power? Then how can anyone prove his existence to you?

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." -Bertrand Russell

Irrelevant. We can se a Teapot. Any Telescope today could see it. But it is not there. The Bible Mention various things that God made that all can be observed. From the stars to the Moon, stars could also include the planets since they are no different in the night sky. So this argument is moot.

I'm not telling you what you can and can't believe, whatever fantasies you want to indulge in are no concern of mine.

Fantasies? It's more than that to him. The Bible, the Hebrew Bible tells the story of God's people, Womble's people. You called all his traditions "Fantasies". Have you no Respect? Are you that bigoted against Religion to the point where you call a people's culture a "fantasy"?

What I'm telling you is that, unless you also accept that the Pastafarian God and the Invisible Pink Unicorn are as valid and likely to exist as the Judeo/Christian one then you are being illogical. Now you can be as illogical as you want, but it does somewhat end the argument.

He does, He just sees them for what they are, not Gods but Lifeless beings that never were. That is different than saying that they don't exist. Once again you show some bigotry. You called a whole Culture Ignorant.

And your original statement wasn't bias? Give me a break. You were saying that I didn't consider your evidence 'sufficient'. Imo, there is no evidence to be 'insufficient'. We're both as bias as the other, because we both consider the other to be completely incorrect.

That is why you need to respect other's beliefs instead of calling them Fantasies or dumb or illogical. Have I ever called an Athiest stupid for not believing? How Many Christians or Jews have done that? Compare that to the number of Atheists who call our faiths stupid and illogical and fairytales and dumb and so on. Is that not Religious Intolerance? Is that not Bigotry? Or what do you call it?

[Womble]

Fantasies? It's more than that to him. The Bible, the Hebrew Bible tells the story of God's people, Womble's people. You called all his traditions "Fantasies". Have you no Respect? Are you that bigoted against Religion to the point where you call a people's culture a "fantasy"?

Umm thanks for defence. The thing is, though, that "how dare you" isn't really much of an argument, and, frankly, it is unnecessary to even bring up the issue of "respect for culture" here.

The problem is a bit different. As far as I am concerned, I have ample proof of God's existence from the sources I consider most reliable. It is evidence of a subjective nature, of which I am well aware. I simply have no reason to distrust my parents, grandparents and further down the genealogical tree. Suggesting that millions upon millions of people maintained a conspiracy of lies for thousands of years to no coherent purpose and to no apparent benefit to themselves, and stood by it despite horrific persecution is to me a claim so extraordinarily absurd that it requires equally extraordinary evidence- of which I see none. What Gibsnag expects, on the other hand, is a piece of evidence that would be subjectively sufficient for him under the standard to which he holds; the catch being that this standard is so defined that it a priori eliminates any possibility of anything supernatural existing.

[mlarke]

Which is why Goa'uld, Ancients and humans on planets other than earth don't exist.

Perhaps not, but for the purposes of this discussion they do. My original question dealt with, as the OP, was dealing with the stargate universe and the events therein.

[SG-25CSAR]

Perhaps not, but for the purposes of this discussion they do. My original question dealt with, as the OP, was dealing with the stargate universe and the events therein.

Thus a new interpitation of the bible will be needed much like my little story about the Ancients, the Followers of Origin and the Ori that I did earlier. The Answer to op, my answer, is that I would Just look at things a little different.

Here is a good example, If you watched the Movie Evan Almighty I'll ask you to remember the part when God was talking to Evan's wife. Remember what he said about the Story of Noah's Ark?

The Bible is deeper than some would think. The story of Adam and Eve is not meant to be a creation myth, it is a story about Humanity and its relationship with God. How Humanity fell to the same error as Satan in wishing to be like God, kind off why the Ancients fell. They Seeded life like if they were Gods and caused the rise of the Wraith that turned out to be their undoing. Then the whole deal with the Asurans became the end for those Ancients in season 3 of SGA.

Perhaps the tech needed to seed life is that Fruit tree in the middle of the Garden. Cause the Ancients decided to play God they fell. They took the forbidin fruit and were kicked out of the garden that is Pegasus Galaxy.

How many more Biblical stories can be parralleled to the Ancients? That would a Question for me ask myself. A reason to continue my beliefs, cause they can help.


There is the question about a Higher power in the SGverse. Well, remember the Episode "There but for the Grace of God"? What are the chances that Daniel dropped into just the right universe with just the right information that allowed SG-1 to save the Earth from Apophis? And consider the Name of the Episode. The full quote is "There, but for the Grace of God, I go" Go where?

How about that Episode "Red Sky" who saved that planet? The Asgard? or God Like Daniel suggested? There is plenty of room for the Judeo/Christian God. Remember that the Bible does not give the Age of the Earth and it is not Canon that life on earth indeed was formed any longer than 6 days. The bible doesn't say that this is the only world with life in existence.

Remember that it is TV. That the bible of TV will also be different. There is no and I mean NO evidence that Aliens maid the Pyramids at Giza for ship landings 10,000 years ago.

[s09119]

There is no and I mean NO evidence that Aliens maid the Pyramids at Giza for ship landings 10,000 years ago.

I'm sure Daniel Jackson would say otherwise