I'm not sure one should dismiss God anymore

[Meticulous Man]

When you're watching South Park, how do you know that Cartman is not real? What would you think of a person that said they were an acartmanist that thinks it's important that Cartman doesn't exist?

[MikeH]

The issue about Christianity is that many people who seem to have known Christ himself, seem to have had pretty horrible deaths in the first years of the Christian Era (because of their beliefs). It makes it hard to believe that they would have died for an invention of theirs.

1. Seem to have.
2. That is easily explained by a David Koresh type figure, doesn't require a real son of God.

[Jon Miller]

The biggest reason to be a Christian is to follow Christ, and see His influence in your life.

So I guess faith is required, initially.

JM

[MikeH]

Exactly. If there was plausible proof you wouldn't require faith and us non-believers wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[Caligastia]

Which is more reasonable:

1 - "There is nothing beyond the material world because I can't sense it. All those billions of other people who say they sense that there is more are just crazy"

2 - "There may be something beyond the material world. I will respect the billions of other people who say they sense it, even though I can't sense it."

[MikeH]

3 - "Whilst the evidence is extremely strong that a 'sense of something beyond the material world' is an illusion that can be easily created with electrical stimulus to the brain, I will attempt to respect the billions of other people who say they sense it as if it is something real. As long as their beliefs have no impact on lawmaking or other decision making in government, they do not push their beliefs onto others and their beliefs aren't actively harmful to others."

[Jon Miller]

Exactly. If there was plausible proof you wouldn't require faith and us non-believers wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Oh, I didn't realize someone had claimed proof. That must have been some long winded post I didn't read?

JM

[Jon Miller]

3 - "Whilst the evidence is extremely strong that a 'sense of something beyond the material world' is an illusion that can be easily created with electrical stimulus to the brain, I will attempt to respect the billions of other people who say they sense it as if it is something real. As long as their beliefs have no impact on lawmaking or other decision making in government, they do not push their beliefs onto others and their beliefs aren't actively harmful to others."

In a democracy, any real belief will have impact on lawmaking and other decision making in government.

JM

[MikeH]

To be fair, it was only Ben.

But RP was suggesting that the 'proof' for a Christian God is more plausible than for the spaghetti monster, which I still dispute.

[Jon Miller]

The Christian God is more plausible than the flying spaghetti monster based purely on the fact that many more people hold a belief in the Christian God. Many people claim personal evidence or proof in favor of the Christian God. No one claims personal evidence or proof in favor of the flying spaghetti monster.

In addition, the rationality of such a belief structure is well developed. This is not the case for the flying spaghetti monster.

To equate the two, as you have done, is nonsensical.

JM

[MikeH]

More people believing something doesn't make it more likely to be true.
"Personal evidence" is worthless when it can be explained. Lots of people have "personal evidence" of ghosts or that psychics work.
No-one really bothers to claim personal evidence for the flying spaghetti monster because it's a thought experiment designed to challenge the rationality of other religious belief systems.

It only seems nonsensical to compare the two to believers. Non-believers really don't see there being a fundamental difference. Differences in history and depth of the myth yes, but not in the fundamental point that it's a belief in a fairly ridiculous being that cannot be proved or disproved.

Why can't there be a spaghetti monster?

[Jon Miller]

More people believing something does mean it is more likely to be true than something that no one believes.

Think about all possible 'things'. Most things that are true are ones which have some people believing in them.

No one believes in the flying spaghetti monster.

Hence the belief in a Christian God (which actually has, for beliefs of this 'type', more believers than any other belief) is more plausible than belief in the flying spaghetti monster.

Most non-believers who have considered belief in God (Christian or otherwise) would consider there to be a difference between the flying spaghetti monster and the Christian God (or some other). The only non-believers who mostly don't consider there to be a fundamental difference are those who have never considered a belief in God.

Just because a group of non-believers are closed minded doesn't mean that they have a better handle on what is ridiculous or not. In fact, I would argue that that is evidence that they have a worse handle on what ideas are ridiculous or not.

JM

[MikeH]

You need to narrow down this debate to things people believe without proof. You might feel that other religions, past and present are a fairer comparison. If there is some kind of religious figure, I would think The Hindu, Greek or Norse Gods were a better bet. Anything where there's more than one God. Why would there be only one?

The point about the flying spaghetti monster is that if it was a real religion it would be as valid as any other.

I quite like Christianity, when done properly ie. the ideas of peace and love, acceptance of everyone no matter who they are or what they do, forgiveness, giving to others ahead of yourself etc. Not hate filled Catholic or other fundamentalist nutter versions. I just don't see why it needs the God aspect.

[Jon Miller]

I think comparing the Christian God to the norse gods is much less ridiculous than comparing the Christian God to the flying spaghetti monster.

JM

[Caligastia]

Whilst the evidence is extremely strong that a 'sense of something beyond the material world' is an illusion that can be easily created with electrical stimulus to the brain

What's this "extremely strong evidence" you have?