generalgrog wrote:It's amazing what you can learn on the OT.

JD21290 wrote:Since we are actually going on about more than just a single religion here, ill drop in a Q. for anyone to answer.

Show me proof that a god or greater being does exist.

Some dude on the internet wrote:"Prove to me that God exists." That's the famous challenge an atheist casts at a theist. The defender of the faith now runs through a list of reasons and arguments that make perfect sense to anybody... except to the atheist. Frustrated, the theist lashes back, "Prove to me that God doesn't exist." Now it's the challenger's turn to turn red with anger. "You don't understand the scientific method. The onus is on you to prove God!"

And so they go, back and forth, conference after conference, century after century. How many times have we seen the scene? A thousand? A million? Is there a solution to this dilemma? Can we break the impasse and move on?

Well, let's look at something a little less emotionally charged and more obvious than God. Can you prove the existence of THIS chair? What experiment would you propose we run? Or what logic are we going to apply to test the hypothesis? Should we touch the chair with our hands or will visual contact suffice? What if the blind man can't see the chair? What if the quadriplegic can't sense it with her fingers? Does the chair vanish? Does it not exist? Does your existence depend on my senses? Did the Sun not exist before life appeared on Earth?

We can brainstorm questions and answers all year long and won't come up with an experiment or test that will satisfy everybody. And all proposals will nonetheless end up being subjective.

How about evidence? That seems to be a sure way. Doesn't a large, fossilized bone objectively prove that T-Rex existed?

So now the theist changes tactics and lists evidence in favor of God. "Look at the wonders that God wrought. Look at the beauty of the mountains and oceans, the perfection of a starfish, the delightful smell of flowers. If that isn't proof of God's existence..."

The atheist is unpersuaded and comes up with an impromptu list of contrary evidence. "Yeah? Look at the misery and war and pestilence that God also showered upon us. Either God doesn't exist or He must be blind or evil!"

And so they continue for hours.

When it comes to matters of proof, Science is quite unlike Law. For instance, testimony -- a hallmark of Law -- is totally inadmissible in Science, for else Science would deteriorate into a subjective discipline. And the purpose of material evidence is political rather than to prove. Evidence is used to sway the jury in the prosecutor's favor, to lend support to the proponent's argument. It does not prove a theory. We certainly cannot prove existence indirectly or by inference. Proof by implication of a qualitative issue is necessarily founded upon opinion.

For instance, are footprints proof of the existence of Big Foot? Do crop circles prove the existence of extraterrestrial aliens?

Footprints and crop circles merely serve to persuade the listener that the presenter can back the instant theory with more than just words. However, the same evidence can just as well be used to justify alternative explanations.

Therefore, a fossil does not prove that T-Rexes existed. A large femur is just that: a bone. The prosecutor is not really arguing that the bone proves the existence of a dinosaur any more than the presence of iridium proves their non-existence. The prosecutor attempts to convince the jury that there is a rational explanation for this bone to be found within a particular cross-section of the Earth's crust. And whether the animal lived 65 million years ago or looked like the picture the artist reconstructed after faithfully following the paleontologist's guidelines is again a matter of theory. The alleged architectures and behaviors and clades of dinosaurs have changed over the years as more evidence and ideas have poured in. Evidence is not per se an explanation, much less conclusive, but rather what the theorist attempts to interpret. And existence is not something we explain (theory), but something we define and assume (hypothesis) in order to explain.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I worship the Lady of Pain

Mannahnin wrote:Anyway, all this is muddying up what I was promised would be a Pagan thread. As a Pagan, I reserve the right to diverge off-topic if I so desire in "The Pagan Thread", but I'd rather stay on topic.

Da Boss wrote:This thread annoys me because apparently those who can dish it out can't take it.

Kilkrazy wrote:Let's drop Creationism vs Evolution. They are only opposed if you are someone who believes in the literal truth of the bible. The topic has been flame warred about many times before.

Kilkrazy wrote:Back to an earlier query, would the Buddha count as a god or higher being?

tblock1984 wrote:I spoke with a coworker and he says there is DEFINITE proof good exists... It can be found here. Hurr durr hurr durp durp durp... Seriously, though:

tblock1984 wrote:And so they go, back and forth, conference after conference, century after century. How many times have we seen the scene? A thousand? A million? Is there a solution to this dilemma? Can we break the impasse and move on?

Wolfstan wrote:Is there a huge amount of evidence that shows that there has always been conflict where religion is concerned? It seems to me that there wasn't, it was only when one God was introduced that this happened.

Wolfstan wrote:Here's another thing... The bible is made up of two parts, the Old Testament & the New Testament. The Old Testament I believe is shared by Jews, Christian's & Muslims (or rough there abouts). After Jesus is born, it fragments, you get the two new religions, Christianity & Islam. These two "new" religions appear to be the ones causing the problems. The Jews are happy to fight for their corner and their homeland, not go out and shove their religion down other peoples throats. Christianity & Islam are hell bent (excuse the pun ) on giving the rest of the planet grief over who we should believe in!

Wolfstan wrote:The old Pagan religions seem to get along without any problems either, it doesn't appear to of made any difference to them. Vikings, Romans, Greeks, Indians and Jews lived, loved and made money. Who you worshiped didn't matter to them. At least to the old world races they were honest about bashing you over the head and taking your money or land... you had it, they wanted it. If they could trade, fine, if they could steal, even better and if they could defeat you in a fight, brilliant, but they didn't do it because of their God's. As I write this I do see a similarity between the worship of the old God's and capitalism. You have the worshipers or want to just get on with life, with their God / Government there in the background, setting out guidelines and some rules. However they would prefer it if God/God's/Government didn't stick their nose in too much!

JEB_Stuart wrote:

tblock1984 wrote:I spoke with a coworker and he says there is DEFINITE proof good exists... It can be found here. Hurr durr hurr durp durp durp... Seriously, though:

Your coworker is a fool. Anyone who makes claims like that is truly foolish.

The term “Pagan” comes originally from the Latin “paganus,” which appears to have originally had such meanings as “villager,” “country dweller,” or “hick.” The Roman army used it to refer to civilians. The early Roman Christians used “pagan” to refer to everyone who preferred to worship pre-Christian divinities, whom the Christians had decided were all “really” demons in disguise, based on the habit of rural folks holding on to their old faiths longer than city folks, as well as because the polytheists were unwilling to enroll in “the Army of the Lord.” Over the centuries, “pagan” became simply an insult, applied to the monotheistic followers of Islam by the Christians (and vice versa), and by the Protestants and Catholics towards each other, as it gradually gained the connotation of “a false religion and its followers.” By the beginning of the twentieth century, the word’s primary meanings became a blend of “atheist,” “agnostic,” “hedonist,” “religionless,” etc., (when referring to an educated, white, male, heterosexual, non-Celtic European) and “ignorant savage and/or pervert” (when referring to everyone else on the planet).

ignorant savage and/or pervert

Wolfstan wrote:Is there a huge amount of evidence that shows that there has always been conflict where religion is concerned? It seems to me that there wasn't, it was only when one God was introduced that this happened.

Here's another thing... The bible is made up of two parts, the Old Testament & the New Testament. The Old Testament I believe is shared by Jews, Christian's & Muslims (or rough there abouts). After Jesus is born, it fragments, you get the two new religions, Christianity & Islam. These two "new" religions appear to be the ones causing the problems. The Jews are happy to fight for their corner and their homeland, not go out and shove their religion down other peoples throats. Christianity & Islam are hell bent (excuse the pun ) on giving the rest of the planet grief over who we should believe in!

The old Pagan religions seem to get along without any problems either, it doesn't appear to of made any difference to them. Vikings, Romans, Greeks, Indians and Jews lived, loved and made money. Who you worshipped didn't matter to them. At least to the old world races they were honest about bashing you over the head and taking your money or land... you had it, they wanted it. If they could trade, fine, if they could steal, even better and if they could defeat you in a fight, brilliant, but they didn't do it because of their God's. As I write this I do see a similarity between the worship of the old God's and capitalism. You have the worshippers or want to just get on with life, with their God / Government there in the background, setting out guidelines and some rules. However they would prefer it if God/God's/Government didn't stick their nose in too much!

Wiki wrote:A religious war is a war caused by religious differences. It can involve one state with an established religion against another state with a different religion or a different sect within the same religion, or a religiously motivated group attempting to spread its faith by violence, or to suppress another group because of its religious beliefs or practices. The Muslim Conquests, the French Wars of Religion, the Crusades, and the Reconquista are frequently cited historical examples.

The Muslim concept of Jihad,which translates to 'struggle' from Arabic and has a combative aspect, was set down in the 7th Century. Saint Augustine is credited as being the first to detail a "Just War" theory within Christianity, whereby war is justifiable on religious grounds. Saint Thomas Aquinas elaborated on these criteria and his writings were used by the Roman Catholic Church to regulate the actions of European countries.

Many wars that are not religious wars often still include elements of religion, such as priests blessing battleships. Differences in religion can further inflame a war being fought for other reasons. Historically, temples have been destroyed to weaken the morale of the opponent, even when the war itself is not being waged over religious ideals.

Religious designations are sometimes used as shorthand for cultural and historical differences between combatants, giving the often misleading impression that the conflict is primarily about religious differences. For example, there is a common perception of The Troubles in Northern Ireland as a religious conflict, as one side (Nationalists) was predominantly composed of Catholics and the other (Unionists) of Protestants. However, the more fundamental cause is the attachment of Northern Ireland to either the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom and while religion played a role as a cultural marker, the conflict was in fact ethnic or nationalistic rather than religious in nature.[1] Since the native Irish were mostly Catholic and the later British-sponsored immigrants were mainly Protestant, the terms become shorthand for the two cultures, but it is inaccurate to describe the conflict as a religious one.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Da Boss wrote:This thread annoys me because apparently those who can dish it out can't take it.

QFT! I find it on both sides of this argument, and it is usually caused by either ignorant or childish people.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

tblock1984 wrote:I spoke with a coworker and he says there is DEFINITE proof good exists... It can be found here. Hurr durr hurr durp durp durp... Seriously, though:

Your coworker is a fool. Anyone who makes claims like that is truly foolish.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

tblock1984 wrote:And so they go, back and forth, conference after conference, century after century. How many times have we seen the scene? A thousand? A million? Is there a solution to this dilemma? Can we break the impasse and move on?

The burden of proof or disproof is on neither of them. It requires a great deal of faith to believe either way. That is due to our own incomplete and pathetic knowledge of the universe.

generalgrog wrote:
The fact that we exist on this planet, and our planet is specifically located in just the right spot in the universe for life to exist, is what I'm talking about. (Before the conniption fits start, I know a person can take the view that this proves nothing, but it doesn't mean that another point of view may disagree)

Mick A wrote:My two pennies worth- first off I would not call myself a christian or a pagan or a follower of any major world religion. Most of the rituals todays pagans follow are based on what Victorians thought happened in the past (look at Stone Henge each solstice and morris dancing), the thought is there but its more show than religion. Unfortunately as the old religions died out or were incorperated into other religions they were lost forever (yes I know there are plenty of theories out there but no real hard evidence. Its also worth noting that the written evidence from the past were written by the religious people who were trying to take over the pagan religions so we have a very biased view of them that way as well).
As for sacrificing, anyone modern pagan who thinks killing a goat to appease their 'gods' needs to be locked up! Sacrificing a goat/other animal in Iron age times was a big deal, it gave you sustenance (milk, cheese, meat) it also clothed you with its skin. If a modern day pagan wanted to do the equivelant they should buy their weeks/months (depending on how much they wanted to appease) food and clothing then throw it on a bonfire as a sacrifice to their gods.
The only thing I really believe in is that everyone should have the right to belive what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or anything and they don't try to force it on others.
Mick

Kilkrazy wrote:If you read up about the old religions you quickly find the same archetypes in all of them: the war god, the mother god, the trickster god, and so on.

Why should those not be the same real gods with different back stories in the different religions?

Evil To worship God One,
For Life Is Composed of
Cubed Opposites -AntiOne.

Simple Cube Divinity is the most perfect
and life supporting form existing in the
universe and on Earth - including Earth
itself. Do you realize that a 4 corner
square rotating 1/4 turn creates a full
circle? A full rotated square will create
16 corners, 96 hours and 4 simultaneous
24 hour Day circles within only a single
imaginary cubed Earth roation. This
amounts to a spiraling quad helix of
Earth as it revolves around the Sun -
rotating as it revolves around the Sun,
to induce the value of the Sun revolving
about the Earth. This act demonstrates
that both Sun and Earth rotate around
each other simultaneously - thus creating
Opposites existing only as Opposites with
a zero value existence between the binary
and cancelling to nothing as One or
God theism. All Creation occurs between
Opposites, and exists only as Opposites -
with a zero value existence. As One or as
a Godism, all Opposite values cancel out
to nothing. The Circle you see around
Earth divides Earth into Opposite values
equal to a zero existence. As One or God,
both Earth and Human cancel to nothing.
The whole of the Universe is composed of
Opposites - with a zero value existence -
that camcels to nothing as One or a God.
Humans worship ONEness of DEATH,
thus they are destroying the LIFE of all
Opposites by which all Creation exists. I
have found Evil lies in the Bible that will
rock religious and academic values to their
primitive origin. There is no Human or
God who can match my Cube Wisdom
as a Cube Phenomenoligist - The Cube
God Measurer. While the Circle of Earth
rotation is a perpetual enbodiment as it
is void of the Corner Time notches that
accumulate as aging Life for the 4 corner
residents. Have you mentality to know 4
Days rotating simultaneously on Earth?

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Evil To worship God One,
For Life Is Composed of
Cubed Opposites -AntiOne.
...
While the Circle of Earth
rotation is a perpetual enbodiment as it
is void of the Corner Time notches that
accumulate as aging Life for the 4 corner
residents. Have you mentality to know 4
Days rotating simultaneously on Earth?

Mannahnin wrote:None of that really corresponds to my Druidic practice, but I'm DANA, former ADF. We're a bit Celtic Reconstructionist in bent; not so much with the theosophy or ceremonial magic.

GBF- Ah, haven't seen that spelling before. I am familiar with that. My mother was Wiccan (Daughters from the late 60s until she joined ADF in the 80s.