Confucianism??

[Terra Nullius]

yo, yo locutus, what-up??

let me put it this way. if you told me that you had absolute proof that aliens did not exist, i would laugh at you.

then i would listen patiently to whatever explanation you had to offer. think about it, how big is the universe? how much do we really know about it? is it realistic to state that we could have absolute proof that absolutely no form of extra-terrestrial life existed?

i don't think so. i don't know if aliens exist. maybe they do, maybe they don't. but somebody who claims to have absolute proof that they don't exist is either in possession of some astounding technology, or they are a raving lunatic.

as far as your statements go, i'm being dead honest. ok?

you say that you know god does not exist. that statement just leaves me rolling around on the floor holding my ribs in agony. it's nothing personal.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Locutus
If the discussion continues along these lines for longer than that, I'll close this thread and interested parties can continue it in the OT.

oh no, not the oaties!!!

agreed. this discussion really has nothing to do with c4, or the op.

and just when it was getting interesting!
meh, life is trouble.

[Solver]

Now, now, no need to mention aliens unless you want to see me go on a rampage .

I am tempted to agree with lebensraum, though. I don't think it's possible to know there isn't a god. I understand your point of view, Locutus, but absensce of any evidence simply isn't enough to know that it doesn't exist. No one has any evidence of single-cell orgaisms under the ice of Io, but that's not enough to know that there aren't any. Likewise with god. Actually, it might even be so that all religions are indeed stories made up by people, but there is a god, who has never intervened or done anything on Earth. It's impossible to know. All in all, the existence of god is not falsifiable, because it can not be checked. Thus, it's very possible to claim no evidence to his existence and be convinced there's no god, but it's impossible to logically consider it proven.

EDIT: I do indeed suggest this be taken to the OT, and this thread will soon be closed, unless anyone feels like he must reply.

[TechWins]

Originally posted by lebensraum

no. pantheism does not mean everything is divine. in order to be classified as pantheist, a system need only be inconsistent with an absolute, logical division between the divine and the natural.

Michael Molloy - “The belief that everything in the universe is divine.” (Experiencing the World’s Religions, p25)
dictionary.com - "A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena"
my Webster's dictionary - "The belief that the laws and forces of nature are manifestations of God"

The latter two defintions hold consistent with the intial definition that pantheism asserts that everything in the universe is divine.

Originally posted by lebensraum

now there's an idea!!!

Why roll your eyes? The sentence is entirely valid and no one else, including yourself, had provided that clarification...

[Kuciwalker]

Please close this thread.

[TechWins]

Locutus,

You can belief that these stories were 'divinely inspired' or whatever (as all believers do), but that doesn't change the fact that they are stories.

I agree; most, if not all, religions are founded off of mythological stories and that does include and pertain to even the Christian religion. The world was created in six days and on the seventh day (Sabbath) God took rest, for instance, is one example of a Christian myth.

Therefore I cannot by any stretch of the definition be an agnosticist.

You would be as I described the pure philosophical concept of an atheist.

I'm not saying belief is a bad thing (in fact, I specificially said the opposite), it's just not based on anything in the real world.

I'm not sure if in all cases it is not based off anything in the real world. Some people constitue certain phenomenan the works of God. However, I would agree the intial basis off a belief in a religion is not based off anything in the real world.

As far as I see it, if something cannot be proven, we do will never know about it. Doesn't mean it's untrue. There are many things we will probably never know about, such as the origin of the universe.

I would claim there is infinite possibility to finding all that is deemed unprovable, but that does not mean it ever will be proved by humanity. Then comes the question what are the limits of human understanding and conceptualizing? It would be almost absurd to define what is unprovable.

We can humanly conceive of the concept of a duck that can talk, is dressed in a sailor outfit, has a rich uncle and a triplet as nephews -- but does that mean we should consider Donald Duck as someone who could actually exist?

We can conceive of such a concept because we have those existing elements as a picture in our minds already, with only needing to combine the different elements to construct the character Donald Duck. But, even though, we can not picture specific elements, such as God, does not mean God is not untrue. There would have to be a seperate means to disproving the existence of God.

I have to disagree there. 'Belief' clearly has associations with faith and trust, rather than assertions based on knowledge.

I agree belief does hold an underlining connotation of faith and possibly trust. Americans believe that the US is the greatest country in the world (of course a subjective and ridiculous assertion in the first place) but clearly that is not based off of knowledge, else the claim would not be held, yet faith and trust in the idea that has been implanted in them through their life.

You can go around and claim English is different from every other language, but that's weak.

All complex languages essentially resort back to the same mental picture, so whether it is "belief" in English or any other language it holds the same concept and idea. It may be, however, the social connotations given to a word that will change the concept and idea. Nonetheless, I think your defintion of belief apart from knowledge is correct.


But through all that I would appreciate for you to be able to present the evidence or argument you see that exists in the placement of disbelief in a higher power, god, gods, or God. I will probably tend to agree with you in this respect, even though, I do not see that a sufficient argument is in place to completely dismiss, or rather prove against I should say, the idea of a higher power.

[TechWins]

Please close this thread.

Or move to OT for those who cannot hold the temptation opening up the thread whilst it is in C4...

[TechWins]

molly bloom, I agree completely with what you said. It is just the ignorance and intolerance of religious followers that you too must believe in God as they do...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by TechWins
Or move to OT for those who cannot hold the temptation opening up the thread whilst it is in C4...

You know, I'm just going to start posting ALL of my off-topic threads here! If you can't resist the temptation of opening them up...

[TechWins]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


You know, I'm just going to start posting ALL of my off-topic threads here! If you can't resist the temptation of opening them up...

There is a big difference between opening up a thread for the sole purpose of it being off-topic and a thread naturally transforming into an off-topic thread through various posts. Plus, this discussion is still related to the inital discussion of religion and is not mindless posting.

I do agree that technically the thread ought to be transfered to OT, but I'm sorry that I don't think it needs to be closed.

[Markus1985]

My last reply before the demise of this thread! I'm glad I got in here quick enough.

@ Locutus.

There simply is no clue of any kind to the existance of any kind of divine power, just as there is no clue to the existance of pink invisible unicorns

I never called them fairy tales, I called them stories.

Well you implied they were fairy tales.

And it's not intended to be intolerant

It is intolerant, wether you intended it or not.

You clearly think that anyone with religious belief is very misguided. I admit that i have beliefs that i cannot prove. There is no certainty in my position. You also have beliefs that you cannot prove. You really need to admit that.

God of the gaps: There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. I think that some of these gaps can only be filled with the existence of a divine entity. You think (correct me if I'm wrong) that these gaps will eventually be filled thus disproving the idea of God. Who's position here is more based upon fact? Well no one can tell but look at the evidence. Everytime we think that we are gettin nearer to filling these gaps we find new ones. As our understanding of the world around us increases we realise that we know less about it than we think. For example, most scientists are now not completely satisfied with the big bang theory or the theory of evolution. Two theories that have notoriously been used to discredit belief in a designed universe. Following our current rate of 'gap narrowing' we will never disprove the existence of a divine entity.

I agree; most, if not all, religions are founded off of mythological stories and that does include and pertain to even the Christian religion. The world was created in six days and on the seventh day (Sabbath) God took rest, for instance, is one example of a Christian myth.

Lots of religion is based on myth. Some isn't (apologies that the only example i know comes from christianity). The gospels were written by eye witnesses, 4 of them. There's more evidence Jesus existed than Julius Caesar.

There is no evidence for the existance of divine power, therefore we know there is no divine power.

Please tell me you can see the flaw in your logic! There is no evidence against the existence of divine power, therefore we know there is divine power?

I'm not trying to make anyone see the world in the same way i do, i'd just like you to realise my outlook is just as valid as yours. See you all in the OTs, ive never been there!

[TechWins]

Lots of religion is based on myth. Some isn't (apologies that the only example i know comes from christianity). The gospels were written by eye witnesses, 4 of them. There's more evidence Jesus existed than Julius Caesar.

Do not misinterpret the word myth - “The term myth, as scholars use it, is a specialized term. It does not in itself mean (as the word is popularly used) that the stories are historically untrue but only that the stories are central to the religion.” The gospels are considered to be, as you pointed out, the eye witness accounts of Jesus and his teachings; the gospels would then be myths to the Christian religion. The accounts of the gospels may be true of false; that is left largely left unknown. Although the myth of Noah's Ark is obviously historically inaccurate, but that does not necessarily make the significance of the myth irrelevant to a religion and its beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_caesar There's enough evidence for you of the existence of Julius Caesar. The life and death of Jesus is largely unknown and that includes his birthplace: Bethlaham or Nazareth? I am not going to deny the historical existence of Jesus but do not throw around unfounded claims...

[DerSchwarzfalke]

There's more evidence Jesus existed than Julius Caesar.

Did I read that right? I had to literally rub my eyes in disbelief. While I do believe in the existence of the historic Jesus, there is not a shred of contemporary evidence linked to Jesus's existence. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written between thirty and sixty years after the presumed date of Jesus's death. Admittedly, some surmise that they (especially Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are based on a singular "Q" source, but that Q source is not known to be extant.

Caesar on the other hand has significant writings known to be his, notably De Bello Gallico. In addition to this, numerous inscriptions remain extant in and around Rome, as well as the wide variety of contemporary sources who wrote on Caesar's life. Hell, you can go to Rome today and lay a flower on the exact spot on which Caesar died.

[Locutus]

Right, this thread has gone on long enough, everyone had a chance to have a last say. I'm closing it because the first part is on-topic and could still have some value for reference purposes. Also, in the OT this thread would immediately drop to halfway down page 2 (and it would be impossible to find back if anyone ever wants to refer to it again in the future).

If anyone wants to continue the Civ4-related aspects of this thread, feel free to start a new thread in this forum.

If anyone wants to continue the off-topic apects of discussion, feel free to start a new thread in the Off Topic forum. If someone provides me with a link I would be willing to add it to this thread for others to find, but this discussion can't continue here.