South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

August 07, 2020, 18:44:24 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]   Go Down
Author Topic:

Steve on 702

 (Read 24703 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 19

« Reply #135 on: September 16, 2010, 10:33:50 AM »

I would say that "god" is a figment of human's imagination. here is my argument:

The "existence" of God and souls whether a physical or spiritual beings shows that human beings have the capacity to believe in things without evidence or proof.

Thomas Aquinas argued that if someone could believe in something then because they believe in it then the thing is true. He also wrote a book saying that because Rome was the spiritual capital it would never fall to the barbarians. After the barbarians conquered Rome he then wrote a book saying that Rome was the spiritual capital and that side would never be conquered. He was dead by the time the Popes fled to Avignon.

This capacity to believe without proof is well documented and the beliefs that can carry through the ages are known as memes. Some well known memes are the divine right of kings, the flat earth and that the sun goes around the earth. Gods do not appear or act but people infected with the god meme do.

According to the net there are something like 55 000 different sects and religions world wide and each religion or sect is a repository of a particular "god" meme. The meme can be transmitted through generations through oral or written tradition.

A meme can change over time as each new generation adapts the meme to their circumstances. The first epics that were "authorised" were the works of Homer. The Athenians paid all poets who could produce Homeric verses and the Illiad and the Odessy were written down. Were some mistakes made? Probably there is the saying "sometimes Homer nodded."

Has the same thing happened to the religious works? Yes if you compare the oldest version of the bible (the codex sinaticus) with the modern cannonical bible (authorised version) you can spot the revisionism. The council of 17 who authorised the bible decided what was holy and what was not. Esther was thrown out but she has stayed in the Torah. Should Revelations be in the bible as the latest research shows it to be a treasure guide? The Quran was also edited by Osman - all versions that he did not approve of were destroyed.

Holy texts only show that evolution is in action. I would still like a copy of the adulterers bible where the not in "Thou shalt not commit adultery," was left out.
Man created god(s) not the other way round.

If you are looking for a worthwhile God here is a list of some Gods that have proof of existence in that they have an aspect that you can experience. Which came first the god or the god's divine spiritual essence?    

OSIRIS   The Egyptian god of agriculture, was also revered as the god of beer.
TAMMUZ,   The ancient Babylonians also considered beer an important part of their economic and social life. They used beer in their religious ceremonies and, like the Egyptians, designated gods to watch over their brewing.  
DUMUZI,   The shepherd DUMUZI, also born in a cave, is the Sumerian equivalent of TAMMUZ, the future Babylonian god of the harvest and vegetation. Born of a virgin, he was also the god of beer brewers.
BRACIACA    Celtic (Gaulish god of beer)
CERES    The Roman god of renewal and, thus, grain from which beer is fermented; by extension he became the good-time god of beer. Other romance languages come closer to Ceres with their generic name for beer; for example, Cerveza in Spanish - and some pretty good brews they make too.
DIONYSIS Roman God Dionysius only became the god of wine after he had first ruled as Sabazios, the god of beer
GAMBRINUS   A mythical figure and symbol of beer drinkers. It's not clear on a historical level who he really was. There are those who say he was a Flemish king who became a monk and later became bishop of Soissons. During a cholera epidemic the bishop noted that those who drank beer instead of water avoided the illness and suggested that everyone drink only beer. This advice met with great success and after this miraculous incident he became known as Saint Arnold of Metz the patron Saint of Brewers
HOMER SIMPSON Comment from a New York wine lover; Roberts:"Bacchus is the god of wine, but there is no god of beer, unless you count Homer
IX-CHEL   Aztec god of beer
NIDABA   Babylonian god of beer.
PELLON PEKKO-    Finnish God of beer, and farming
Ragutiene    Lithuanian goddess of beer.
Ragutis    Lithuanian god of beer.

Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member

Skeptical ability: +64/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3786

In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται

« Reply #136 on: September 16, 2010, 11:42:39 AM »

Did you leave out Bacchus deliberately?  Or do you prefer the grain to the exclusion of the grape?


Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 19

« Reply #137 on: September 16, 2010, 11:50:07 AM »

Did you leave out Bacchus deliberately?

Yes I did leave out Bacchus deliberately and all the other wine gods. I am not qualified to go too deeply into spiritual matters. My mind can only encompass small beer issues.
Skeptically yours
Hero Member

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1421

Carpe diem

« Reply #138 on: September 16, 2010, 13:17:39 PM »

Both instances are horrible misrepresentations...of the first premise
Fixed it for you so that I can agree. But neither fixates on the premise but on the bullshit first cause the argument creates fallaciously. If it grates on you that they got that bit off, so be it. Take it up with them directly.
That is it, there is nothing much else to speculate.
Because you say it is so, it must be so.  Roll Eyes 
It is also simply false (another straw man lol) to say that the first cause argument requires the first cause to be eternal,
Suck my dick. It is argued both ways at different times - eternity and / or "out of time" depending on which delusional deviant is making the argument.
when in fact it is the exact opposite. It actually follows from the argument that the first cause is not constrained by time.
Everything is constrained by time. If it isn't, it doesn't exist. It is meaningless to talk about "outside of time" other than in Science Fiction and Fantasy, like the holey babble.
Sr. Member

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403

Merda accidit.

« Reply #139 on: September 23, 2010, 19:31:52 PM »

Anybody that thinks God is a physical/corporeal/material being and/or thinks that people that believe in God believe that God is a physical/corporeal/material being is de facto deficient in understanding of theology/philosophy/metaphysics/religion.

Well, god isn't, so there.  Tongue

But, a bit more seriously...

If you wish to posit a god that is "of another dimension", outside of space-time and the physical, well, who knows? Not me.

Otherwise, if you wish to posit a god wot is a bit like Jesus/Yahweh/Holey-Ghostey and co, then you got problems. This triune deity sent a bit of itself to be "in the world", is a "personal god", and is one to whom many millions pray every day on the hope or expectation of intervention in the physical world. With god on their side, how could the Boers lose the Bore War? With god on their side, how could Great Britain fail to win the Bore War? Jesus undeaded Lazarus, turned water into wine and so on, and his official SABS-approved church - Ratburger and co - verifies miracles.

Endless other examples.

The point is though, that there is supposedly intervention within the realm of the physical by the "divine". So the normal regularities ( your "Laws", if you like! ) observed in the physical world are not so regular, and are fucked over every time Jesus or Mother Mary answers a prayer. There has to be some kind of "interface" between the physical and the "spiritual" allowing this.

Beeg problem though - this is not observed. Now, I know you are always trying to find this interface - you have blathered on about paired particles or whatever they are called, and about nanotubes in the brain, without any success.

So, all I can see is that those parts of "theology/philosophy/metaphysics/religion" that claim anything non-physical ( souls, spirits, tokoloshes, god-knows-what-else ) are just deluded.
Hero Member

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367

I think therefor I am, I think

« Reply #140 on: September 27, 2010, 12:49:37 PM »

I only had the chance to download the podcast today and listened...well done Steve. i hate speaking on the phone like  this as one doesn't get to really debate. However it's amazing that the lady who denied that the 'acquisition of knowledge' turned you away from religion could not accept that knowledge is it! It was the "Devil's work" in her mind! Mind you she also thinks God makes the sun come up every  day.  WTF!! They also all want to know from you "What happened to you (my dear man my italics) to change your views"

And then the guy talking about Jews and Bible stories! he's right of course, but the way it came through was scary!
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]   Go Up

Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.332 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 03, 2019, 08:10:36 AM
Privacy Policy