Things you don't get.

[Smartie]

I'm quite neutral on the religion thing. I know loads of people who take their faith seriously (whichever faith that happens to be) and they are all good people. We all have stories and "evidence" to help explain our world, science explains a great deal but there are still gaps in between. That is where religion can come in, and depending on the gaps you have, there will be some faith that you need.

Most religions and the way they are used are a decent bunch of moral principles, and sadly they seem to be hijacked by a small number of nutters, a small number who are easy to focus on.

It would be fair to say I am a non-believer , but there is a bit of me that regrets beings so, as many religious people do get a comfort and understanding from their faith that I do not.

Peace, man.

[heretoday]

Religion is OK on a personal level but organised religion can be dangerous.
It becomes just another way for one set of people to keep control over another lot.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Surely this is now Holy (or not) Ground territory. ;-)

[Future17]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I respectfully disagree, and JC's response to my post suggests that I've linked correctly.

Considering how many variations and interpretations of Gods the are, the evidence points to a liberal use of imagination across the religions.

There is only anecdotal evidence of Jesus having existed, for instance, so ideas of what's he looked like and what he did were created from storytelling - to the best of my knowledge there is no archaeological evidence that Jesus existed. There is nothing more than storytelling to evidence God's existence, so He has to be imaginary.

An omnipotent being who is everywhere yet can't be seen, heard, touched, or smelled exists in the heads of those that believe - but whichever way you look at it, that being is imaginary - belief that He is real does not change the fact that He is still imaginary.

I'm trying to explain my point of view without being disrespectful to those that do believe, as each will have their own valid and probation reasons for doing so, and as it's virtually impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, they could well be right and I've an eternity of wishing is made better choices ahead of me so I'm not going to get all smug about it now!

Again, I don't think I disagree with your overall point, just your terminology.

"Imaginary" means something which does not exist (except in the imagination). In referring to a person's God as imaginary, I think you're inadvertently failing to respect that person's right to believe in that God, which is the opposite of how you described your attitude earlier.

Perhaps "imaginable" might be a better fit for what you've described, but even that doesn't seem quite right.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Again, I don't think I disagree with your overall point, just your terminology.

"Imaginary" means something which does not exist (except in the imagination). In referring to a person's God as imaginary, I think you're inadvertently failing to respect that person's right to believe in that God, which is the opposite of how you described your attitude earlier.

Perhaps "imaginable" might be a better fit for what you've described, but even that doesn't seem quite right.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive - whether someone believes or not doesn't make something less imaginary - if something's not imaginary then regardless of belief people would accept its existence, no?

I genuinely respect people's beliefs, which is why I'm doing my best (but failing, I think) not to be dismissive. I respect that millions of people around the world believe in the existence of a God of some description, depending on where they were born or how they were brought up etc, and that they have faith that their belief is correct - but the word faith is about believing in something without evidence. If there's no evidence then where does it exist other than in your and other's imagination?

What I respect is that people are entitled to their faith, I respect their strength to hold those beliefs and can see that some people get a lot of comfort from their faith. Personally, I don't get it (hence the post on this very thread) but as an agnostic atheist I'm open to the idea of God if there's evidence to support it.
I'm not demanding that evidence, I'm happy with my position on it - eternity is a long time to deal with that decision if I'm wrong

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive - whether someone believes or not doesn't make something less imaginary - if something's not imaginary then regardless of belief people would accept its existence, no?

I genuinely respect people's beliefs, which is why I'm doing my best (but failing, I think) not to be dismissive. I respect that millions of people around the world believe in the existence of a God of some description, depending on where they were born or how they were brought up etc, and that they have faith that their belief is correct - but the word faith is about believing in something without evidence. If there's no evidence then where does it exist other than in your and other's imagination?

What I respect is that people are entitled to their faith, I respect their strength to hold those beliefs and can see that some people get a lot of comfort from their faith. Personally, I don't get it (hence the post on this very thread) but as an agnostic atheist I'm open to the idea of God if there's evidence to support it.
I'm not demanding that evidence, I'm happy with my position on it - eternity is a long time to deal with that decision if I'm wrong

Evidence again. What is your evidence that the number two exists? You can weigh two cups of tea, photograph them, etc. But that's cups of tea. What about the actual number itself, the number two? Are you happy to accept its reality without being able to weigh it, etc?

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's a theory more than an idea, and though it would be very difficult you could test it to prove it disprove it.

How could you test the hypothesis that (paraphrasing, hope without taking any liberties) if we went back to a time when there was no recorded science or religion, after a while we'd end up with the science we have now but not the religion? Genuinely puzzled at that.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How could you test the hypothesis that (paraphrasing, hope without taking any liberties) if we went back to a time when there was no recorded science or religion, after a while we'd end up with the science we have now but not the religion? Genuinely puzzled at that.

I understand it to mean that scientific fact would not change because it's governed by the unchanging laws of nature. Religion on the other hand is based on human testimony of unknown or unproven origin and has evolved to
fit the needs of the different generations. The laws of science will never change but religion will evolve differently depending on the original narrative.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Evidence again. What is your evidence that the number two exists? You can weigh two cups of tea, photograph them, etc. But that's cups of tea. What about the actual number itself, the number two? Are you happy to accept its reality without being able to weigh it, etc?

It's not really the same, though - is it? Without wanting to go into what two is, I am absolutely happy to accept that a 'two' doesn't exist as an entity in its own right. Two is not a reality in itself (there's a sentence I never thought I'd be writing on hibs.net ).

'Two' represents two units of (something), rather than being something itself.

If you want to make the comparison though, two was something that was conceptualised by mankind to help make sense of things that weren't understood at the time. To understand counting, two had to be imagined and explained and shared as an idea (and adopted by others). Which is (IMHO), what happened with religion.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I understand it to mean that scientific fact would not change because it's governed by the unchanging laws of nature. Religion on the other hand is based on human testimony of unknown or unproven origin and has evolved to
fit the needs of the different generations. The laws of science will never change but religion will evolve differently depending on the original narrative.

Yes - that's exactly right.

Religion and religious stories may still emerge, they may emerge broadly as they are now and there's probably a remote chance that they would emerge identically to the stories that are told to this day.

Exploration of science would always lead to a description of gravity, of the solar system, of evolution, understanding electricity, medicine etc... because science only evolves with discovery and new evidence, and so we would come back eventually to the point where we are at now - and surpass it eventually as new evidence and new theories are proven and disproven.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How could you test the hypothesis that (paraphrasing, hope without taking any liberties) if we went back to a time when there was no recorded science or religion, after a while we'd end up with the science we have now but not the religion? Genuinely puzzled at that.

You couldn't go back in time - the point is if you wiped all books, literature and references to science and religion then the science books and discoveries would definitely be repeated because science proves and disproves theories and discoveries. A scientific fact is only a fact until someone disproves it. When everyone thought the world was flat it took for someone to prove it was a globe for that new science to be written.

Let's imagine there's a nuclear war, and by a quirk of fate only a small, uneducated section of the world's population survived, they have no prior reference points and so are starting fresh - they would eventually discover and understand gravity, electricity, the theory of relativity etc... They might or might not think that the massive explosion was an act of an all powerful being.

[Future17]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive - whether someone believes or not doesn't make something less imaginary - if something's not imaginary then regardless of belief people would accept its existence, no?

I genuinely respect people's beliefs, which is why I'm doing my best (but failing, I think) not to be dismissive. I respect that millions of people around the world believe in the existence of a God of some description, depending on where they were born or how they were brought up etc, and that they have faith that their belief is correct - but the word faith is about believing in something without evidence. If there's no evidence then where does it exist other than in your and other's imagination?

What I respect is that people are entitled to their faith, I respect their strength to hold those beliefs and can see that some people get a lot of comfort from their faith. Personally, I don't get it (hence the post on this very thread) but as an agnostic atheist I'm open to the idea of God if there's evidence to support it.
I'm not demanding that evidence, I'm happy with my position on it - eternity is a long time to deal with that decision if I'm wrong

Someone can believe in something which is imaginary, but another person can't describe that something as imaginary if they are open to the concept of its existence, regardless of how sceptical they may be about it.

Of course it's possible to respect a person's beliefs whilst stating you don't believe in the same thing (or anything for that matter), but by saying someone's God (for example) is imaginary, you are saying that God doesn't exist. I don't think you can describe that as respecting a person's beliefs.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Someone can believe in something which is imaginary, but another person can't describe that something as imaginary if they are open to the concept of its existence, regardless of how sceptical they may be about it.

Of course it's possible to respect a person's beliefs whilst stating you don't believe in the same thing (or anything for that matter), but by saying someone's God (for example) is imaginary, you are saying that God doesn't exist. I don't think you can describe that as respecting a person's beliefs.

Fair enough but I don't think they're mutually exclusive I don't believe that God exists and perhaps it's down to my limitations on how I can explain my thoughts, but I can't think of another way to explain it

A Christian has faith that the being (unsure if that should be 'Being', so if it should, I apologise) that they imagine exists, faith and belief are key words here. Faith is believing in something and having that spiritual conviction, despite a lack of evidence.

God means something different and is something different from person to person. Why is that? It's their interpretation, their imagining of what God is based on what they've read, understood, or been told about Him.

I'm not being disrespectful - at least not purposely - I'm maybe being a little blunt in my description but I think it's a matter of fact word to describe it.

If someone tells me they believe in God, I don't tell them they're wrong - I respect their belief and leave them to it.

Spoiler alert:

If I'm talking to a kid that believes in Santa, they're maybe old enough to have their doubts but still young enough to want to hold on to the belief - maybe even a wee bit worried that if they still believing then they won't get t any presents - in their minds, Santa is real - he exists but we know, as adults who put the presents under the tree , that he only exists in their imagination. A young kid would bet their life on Santa being real - even in the absence of a chimney for him to come down into their house etc. As parents we respect that belief and even nurture it until they reach an age where we have to break it to them that their pals are telling the truth.

I'll point out that I'm not comparing Santa with God, really. Just trying to demonstrate that if something exists in one person's mind but not in another's, then virtually by definition, it's imaginary.

Edit: couple of additional points having re-read your post.

I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I'm saying that I don't believe He exists, and I'm saying that there isn't evidence to support the existence of a God.

Also, if tomorrow sometime popped up with verifiable evidence to prove the existence of God, then I'd accept happily that I was wrong. Crucially I'm not telling anyone they're right or wrong about it, and I'm not trying to prove or disprove His existence.



I'm the same with zombies, vampires and ghosts - I don't think any of those things exists, I don't believe in magic, but if someone evidenced their existence, I'd change my mind.

[J-C]

So what is the true god?
Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Allah, Vishnu, Guru Nanak, Amaterasu, the plethora of spirits and gods from various tribes and indigenous people from around the globe. Where was this one and only god when these other so called gods were/are being worshipped? Why did this one true god not show himself and tell his children that they are worshipping the wrong gods and there was only him and not the multiple gods that many people worshipped at the time.

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I understand it to mean that scientific fact would not change because it's governed by the unchanging laws of nature. Religion on the other hand is based on human testimony of unknown or unproven origin and has evolved to
fit the needs of the different generations. The laws of science will never change but religion will evolve differently depending on the original narrative.

Why do you believe this?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not really the same, though - is it? Without wanting to go into what two is, I am absolutely happy to accept that a 'two' doesn't exist as an entity in its own right. Two is not a reality in itself (there's a sentence I never thought I'd be writing on hibs.net ).

'Two' represents two units of (something), rather than being something itself.

As a definition, that's a tad circular.

If you want to make the comparison though, two was something that was conceptualised by mankind to help make sense of things that weren't understood at the time.

Someone invented two?

To understand counting, two had to be imagined and explained and shared as an idea (and adopted by others). Which is (IMHO), what happened with religion.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes - that's exactly right.

Religion and religious stories may still emerge, they may emerge broadly as they are now and there's probably a remote chance that they would emerge identically to the stories that are told to this day.

Exploration of science would always lead to a description of gravity, of the solar system, of evolution, understanding electricity, medicine etc... because science only evolves with discovery and new evidence, and so we would come back eventually to the point where we are at now - and surpass it eventually as new evidence and new theories are proven and disproven.

Huge leap of faith, imo, that if you reran history you'd end up with the same science that prevails today. Are our understanding of electricity, magnetism, gravity etc not products of our history - the results of strings of contributions by actual historical people, like Norman Einstein?

[Danderhall Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't believe in magic, but if someone evidenced their existence, I'd change my mind.

Funny you say that as I believe that “Jesus” was a guy who was brilliant at illusions and that. I watched Dynamo’s tv show and he replicated many of the biggest hits - walking on water, making fish appear, turned juice to water among others.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why do you believe this?


As a definition, that's a tad circular.


Someone invented two?





Huge leap of faith, imo, that if you reran history you'd end up with the same science that prevails today. Are our understanding of electricity, magnetism, gravity etc not products of our history - the results of strings of contributions by actual historical people, like Norman Einstein?

It's not a huge leap of faith - throw a ball in the air and it will come back down, try to figure out why and you'll eventually get to the answer : gravity.

When I say someone invented two, I think you know what I mean. For a start humans at one point wouldn't have evolved sufficiently to count, then someone would have figured it out and then, to communicate it and use it they'd need to come up with (or invent) a way of explaining it. That would have evolved to where we are now where people understand what is meant when someone says "two".

[speedy_gonzales]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Someone invented two?

It happens, apparently an Islamic Persian invented "zero",,,,

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So what is the true god?
Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Allah, Vishnu, Guru Nanak, Amaterasu, the plethora of spirits and gods from various tribes and indigenous people from around the globe. Where was this one and only god when these other so called gods were/are being worshipped? Why did this one true god not show himself and tell his children that they are worshipping the wrong gods and there was only him and not the multiple gods that many people worshipped at the time.

The 3 major monotheistic religions all believe in the same God. Allah, Yahweh and God are generally accepted to be the same being.

And it's a pretty major part of Christian belief that God did show himself through Jesus. From the Catholic version of the Nicene Creed:

'I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ......begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father....'

Or the Anglican:

'Being of one substance with the Father'

The Lutheran Churches:

'Very God of very God......of one substance with the Father'.

[Scouse Hibee]

I don’t get why this has descended into religion. Wrong board surely.

[J-C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The 3 major monotheistic religions all believe in the same God. Allah, Yahweh and God are generally accepted to be the same being.

And it's a pretty major part of Christian belief that God did show himself through Jesus. From the Catholic version of the Nicene Creed:

'I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ......begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father....'

Or the Anglican:

'Being of one substance with the Father'

The Lutheran Churches:

'Very God of very God......of one substance with the Father'.

OK but explain all the other Gods either still worshipped or were worshipped by people like Romans, Norse, Greeks, Egyptians etc, or explain the Pagans and aboriginal people of Australia who don't believe in a god but believe in a Mother Earth type spirit, or the people of the rainforests throughout the world who believe in spirits.

[oldbutdim]

In answer to the original question:



Laid.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don’t get why this has descended into religion. Wrong board surely.

There couldn't be a more apt board than The Holy Ground.

[J-C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don’t get why this has descended into religion. Wrong board surely.

This is .net did you really thin this thread would stay on subject, it's the norm on here.

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

OK but explain all the other Gods either still worshipped or were worshipped by people like Romans, Norse, Greeks, Egyptians etc, or explain the Pagans and aboriginal people of Australia who don't believe in a god but believe in a Mother Earth type spirit, or the people of the rainforests throughout the world who believe in spirits.

The only explanation I have is they have chose to believe in something different from me.

Again it comes down to that word faith. Faith in our own beliefs; one of the many belief systems could be right or we could all be wrong and we end up as nothing more than a pile of ashes. If it's the latter then it's not an issue as I won't know anything about it.

As I said previously for me religion isn't about being right or being better than anyone else (although I would argue it has made me a better person). I respect the right of people to believe in whatever God they choose or to believe that there is no God.

[pollution]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is .net did you really thin this thread would stay on subject, it's the norm on here.

I agree with you.

Who is in charge of this site?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I agree with you.

Who is in charge of this site?

Bunch of pricks, obviously.

[Future17]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fair enough but I don't think they're mutually exclusive I don't believe that God exists and perhaps it's down to my limitations on how I can explain my thoughts, but I can't think of another way to explain it

A Christian has faith that the being (unsure if that should be 'Being', so if it should, I apologise) that they imagine exists, faith and belief are key words here. Faith is believing in something and having that spiritual conviction, despite a lack of evidence.

God means something different and is something different from person to person. Why is that? It's their interpretation, their imagining of what God is based on what they've read, understood, or been told about Him.

I'm not being disrespectful - at least not purposely - I'm maybe being a little blunt in my description but I think it's a matter of fact word to describe it.

If someone tells me they believe in God, I don't tell them they're wrong - I respect their belief and leave them to it.

Spoiler alert:

If I'm talking to a kid that believes in Santa, they're maybe old enough to have their doubts but still young enough to want to hold on to the belief - maybe even a wee bit worried that if they still believing then they won't get t any presents - in their minds, Santa is real - he exists but we know, as adults who put the presents under the tree , that he only exists in their imagination. A young kid would bet their life on Santa being real - even in the absence of a chimney for him to come down into their house etc. As parents we respect that belief and even nurture it until they reach an age where we have to break it to them that their pals are telling the truth.

I'll point out that I'm not comparing Santa with God, really. Just trying to demonstrate that if something exists in one person's mind but not in another's, then virtually by definition, it's imaginary.

Edit: couple of additional points having re-read your post.

I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I'm saying that I don't believe He exists, and I'm saying that there isn't evidence to support the existence of a God.

Also, if tomorrow sometime popped up with verifiable evidence to prove the existence of God, then I'd accept happily that I was wrong. Crucially I'm not telling anyone they're right or wrong about it, and I'm not trying to prove or disprove His existence.



I'm the same with zombies, vampires and ghosts - I don't think any of those things exists, I don't believe in magic, but if someone evidenced their existence, I'd change my mind.

I totally get where you’re coming from, my point was purely about semantics, as the word you used doesn’t mean what I think you think it means. It’s as simple as that.

Your Santa example is a good one for the purpose of this discussion (re: semantics); you respect the belief of the child by not telling them “Santa doesn’t exist”. By saying “God is imaginary”, you are saying God does not exist. That’s implicit in the definition of that specific word you used and, with that in mind, I can’t agree with the definition you’ve applied. Admittedly I don’t have a perfect definition for the context of this discussion, but the closest I can come up with is “something which can be proven not to exist”.

Anyway, my reading of what you were saying was that you hadn’t intended to say “God doesn’t exist”, so I was trying to help clarify. You’ve clarified that yourself a few times now though, so I’ll get off my semantic high horse and stop confusing matters!

[J-C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The only explanation I have is they have chose to believe in something different from me.

Again it comes down to that word faith. Faith in our own beliefs; one of the many belief systems could be right or we could all be wrong and we end up as nothing more than a pile of ashes. If it's the latter then it's not an issue as I won't know anything about it.

As I said previously for me religion isn't about being right or being better than anyone else (although I would argue it has made me a better person). I respect the right of people to believe in whatever God they choose or to believe that there is no God.

Again what I don't get is IF god created the heaven and earth and made man in his own image, why is there so many various religions and beliefs, surely there would be only one belief, IF god is real why would he allow all these other beliefs to even exist.

Or is it not just a fact that throughout the world the various indigenous people had differing view points and those turned out to be what turned into their beliefs and religions for that part of the world, we here in Britain were Pagan worshippers before the Romans, Jutes, Germanic and Vikings came here . Some days of the week take their names from these people, Saturday ( Saturn ) Thursday ( Thor ) 2 Gods from their beliefs.

[J-C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I totally get where you’re coming from, my point was purely about semantics, as the word you used doesn’t mean what I think you think it means. It’s as simple as that.

Your Santa example is a good one for the purpose of this discussion (re: semantics); you respect the belief of the child by not telling them “Santa doesn’t exist”. By saying “God is imaginary”, you are saying God does not exist. That’s implicit in the definition of that specific word you used and, with that in mind, I can’t agree with the definition you’ve applied. Admittedly I don’t have a perfect definition for the context of this discussion, but the closest I can come up with is “something which can be proven not to exist”.

Anyway, my reading of what you were saying was that you hadn’t intended to say “God doesn’t exist”, so I was trying to help clarify. You’ve clarified that yourself a few times now though, so I’ll get off my semantic high horse and stop confusing matters!

Until there is conclusive proof that he exists, God cannot exist, the Bible, Koran etc are stories and fables and as such prove nothing, much like any book of fiction is just that. Who's to say Scientology isn't real, many famous celebrities follow that ad I'd go as far as to say their not stupid people. what about Hindu's who believe in gods with multiple arms, is their gods the real ones? There is no proof for any deity or god as they are all beliefs, stories or fables handed down through the age.