"The God Who Wasn't There"

[GoldEagle]

For the record, I don't see abortion as a civil right. I can come up with nonreligious ethical reasons why it is wrong.

Agreed. Why would you kill a life who hasn't even done anything, nor experienced this world of wonders? I mean, it was your damn fault that she got pregnant. No problem with the morning after pill, IMO, because there isn't a fetus, nor proof of life. It's just insurance.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Agreed. Why would you kill a life who hasn't even done anything, nor experienced this world of wonders? I mean, it was your damn fault that she got pregnant. No problem with the morning after pill, IMO, because there isn't a fetus, nor proof of life. It's just insurance.

Pretty much. Destroying (or causing to fail to implant) a zygote is only wrong if said zygote has a soul, and that is a purely religious affair. (And for the record, I believe in a soul but that embryos have not yet gotten one, hence the morning-after pill is acceptable.) But a fetus that is clearly a separate living being can be protected without recourse to religious ideas at all.

Other than that, I do agree that it is a shame when rights such as enfranchisement, or protection from abuse or rape, are denied on religious grounds. But these are problems of fundamentalism within a given religion, not the entire religion in general.

 

[aneeshm]

I wonder - what if somebody created such a movie about Islam ? How would this forum react then ? With a dismissive "Theists are all loonies anyway" argument as is seen in this thread ? Or with vitriol against the maker of the movie as anti-Muslim ? I suspect the latter . I'm going to make a poll on this .

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I wonder - what if somebody created such a movie about Islam ? How would this forum react then ? With a dismissive "Theists are all loonies anyway" argument as is seen in this thread ? Or with vitriol against the maker of the movie as anti-Muslim ? I suspect the latter . I'm going to make a poll on this .

My response would be, "whatever, people are going to think what they want to think. If this is adding new information or a new interpretation, then it has some use even if I disagree with it. If its only purpose is to repeat other's ideas, then there is no real purpose to it. Either way, I will probably just ignore it, because it's not like a movie criticizing religion is some new and revolutionary thing." Which is exactly my response to the one in the OP.

 

[GoldEagle]

I wonder - what if somebody created such a movie about Islam ?

They would fly a plane into the heart of CFCopolis

 

[meatwad4289]

The Chrstians will probaly boycott it and riot over it here and try to make the govenrment ban it. I mean they did that for the Da Vinci Code so imagine for thsi...jeez...damn religous minorties always imposing their views and beliefs on the masses. I can just imagine the furor, the government will prably oblige them too.

Sorry just seen the trailer, Started reading posts and came to yours.. and STOPPED at your inaccuracy of the Religious Minority. Infact Well over 80% of the United States Believes in A God or supreme being. Majority of this 80% being Christian. Also if you think about it Athiest are Religious, they believe in No God, and by Classification Religion is a Belief.

This seems to be very low budget BS. Trying to make a buck riding the coat tails of Da Vinci Code, but the train left the station. If anyone were to boycott it it would be any sensable Historian. Jesus Christ and the Aposals are Historic Fact. Now whether he was the Son of God, a healer, a profit, or just a good guy, is in the eye of the beholder..

To claim Religion is a minority is utterly ********. Especially when over 80% believe in God. and by that and the way our Democratic Society is set, Majority rules.

Also.. Da Vinci code is a rip off "Holy Grail, Holy Blood" which the authors of "Holy Grail Holy Blood" give credit to their inspiration(20 years prior to that) and Dan Brown does not.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Don't be absurd. Science cannot disprove (Or, admittedly, prove) the existence of God.

And... nobody can disprove or prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And... nobody can disprove or prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster

Except that we have a clear idea of what the Loch Ness monster is supposed to be, and a very limited area in which to look, and it is reasonable to suggest a cold-blooded organism couldn't live in a cold lake, and had no way of getting there.

On the other hand, God could take any one of an immense number of forms, and has an entire universe (plus all sorts of other dimensions) in which to be. So the analogy isn't quite apt.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Except that we have a clear idea of what the Loch Ness monster is supposed to be, and a very limited area in which to look, and it is reasonable to suggest a cold-blooded organism couldn't live in a cold lake, and had no way of getting there.

On the other hand, God could take any one of an immense number of forms, and has an entire universe (plus all sorts of other dimensions) in which to be. So the analogy isn't quite apt.

But can you disprove, absolutely, beyond the shadow of doubt, the existence of the Loch Ness Monster? You haven't answered my question...

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But can you disprove, absolutely, beyond the shadow of doubt, the existence of the Loch Ness Monster? You haven't answered my question...

[scientific method nerd]You can't prove a negative![/scientific method nerd]

However, based on the fact that there is a limited test that the Loch Ness monster would have to satisfy to be proven, and that it has failed to do so, suggests to me that its existence is quite unlikely. It has only a lake to hide in, remember. God has a whole universe.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

However, based on the fact that there is a limited test that the Loch Ness monster would have to satisfy to be proven, and that it has failed to do so, suggests to me that its existence is quite unlikely.

In a related question, can I prove absolutely, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Abraham Lincoln was not an alien infiltrator from Venus?

[scientific method nerd]You can't prove a negative![/scientific method nerd]

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere!

It has only a lake to hide in, remember. God has a whole universe.

Yet... you're still using the hiding argument.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

No, Ponthius, you can't prove that Honest Abe was lying about his origins.

Now, it would be perfectly reasonable for you not to act on that idea as you have no proof for it. Likewise, it is perfectly reasonable for someone not to believe in God if they don't see any evidence of His existence. But like I have said, I honestly believe that He has (in a way impossible to describe here) revealed Himself to me. If I saw the Loch Ness Monster with my own eyes, I would accept its existence, but without photos I would hardly expect anyone else to believe me.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

you can't prove that Honest Abe was lying about his origins.

He wanted to tell the truth, but then he couldn't have been elected President as he wasn't a citizen!

The truth is Venus had to send Abe otherwise the USA would have broken apart and we'd never have gone into space. See, it all makes sense.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

He wanted to tell the truth, but then he couldn't have been elected President as he wasn't a citizen!

The truth is Venus had to send Abe otherwise the USA would have broken apart and we'd never have gone into space. See, it all makes sense.

When you put it that way, it makes a tremendous amount of sense. After all, we were launching our rockets from the former CSA. But what does Venus stand to gain?

 

[El_Machinae]

To claim Religion is a minority is utterly ********. Especially when over 80% believe in God. and by that and the way our Democratic Society is set, Majority rules.

Welcome to the international internet; where people from India will give their opinion on what will happen in their country when the movie is released.

Not blind faith, but somewhere along the line don't you get to a point where there are no realistic alternatives, then isn't faith the logical choice?

See, for me, it's not enough. I easily admit that our universe might have been created on purpose. But there's nothing available for me to make the leap that this Creator cares about me and can deny me Heaven based on whether I eat pork or die valourously in battle or whatever.

I mean, it was your damn fault that she got pregnant.

See, I have an opposite view. I think it's terribly rude to force a being into existence just to punish people for being careless during sex. The concept of a wiping boy pales in comparison.

 

[silver 2039]

Sorry just seen the trailer, Started reading posts and came to yours.. and STOPPED at your inaccuracy of the Religious Minority. Infact Well over 80% of the United States Believes in A God or supreme being. Majority of this 80% being Christian. Also if you think about it Athiest are Religious, they believe in No God, and by Classification Religion is a Belief.

Guess what? I don't live in the US. I live in India and Chrstians are a religous minority here. An athestim is by defination lack of belief in the concept of god, how is that religous? Athesim is lack of belief, it is not a religous beleif because there is no athesit ideology, dogma, or principals. Religon is a system of values,and beleifs.

To claim Religion is a minority is utterly ********. Especially when over 80% believe in God. and by that and the way our Democratic Society is set, Majority rules.

Also.. Da Vinci code is a rip off "Holy Grail, Holy Blood" which the authors of "Holy Grail Holy Blood" give credit to their inspiration(20 years prior to that) and Dan Brown does not.

GASP!! I live in India. Chrstians are the minority yet they constantly try to impose their views on others. They got the Da Vinci Code banned in 7 states before the Supreme Court overturned it. The majority had no problem with it but a small, loud, angry minority did.

As for palgrisim from the other book, there was already a court case and charges against Brown were dismissed. Borrowing an idea does not account to plagerisim especially in literature. He took their concept and built a story around it, once could hardly call it plagerized.

 

[Markus6]

But can you disprove, absolutely, beyond the shadow of doubt, the existence of the Loch Ness Monster? You haven't answered my question...

Yes, we drop a nuke (2 if you really want to be sure) into Loch Ness. If no monsters float to the top then you've proved it.

 

[Narz]

They would fly a plane into the heart of CFCopolis

10char

 

[Leifmk]

IIRC, there are 2 or 3 historical letters from that time period between different high-ranking Romans discussing in one or two lines Jesus and any possible threat. I Googled it, couldn't find it. But then again, those officials could have just been hearing rumors.

There are persistent myths about such contemporary sources but none exist. The earliest extant sources are from a generation or two later and basically serve to establish the existence at that time of early Christianity as a cult or sect within Judaism (and later having crossed over to the non-Jewish population).

 

[El_Machinae]

It's not really surprise that there are no documents; if Jesus was a competitor with Mithras, it's not unreasonable for a Mithran worshipper to destroy records if possible.