god the fat onion? I like.

Fat onion god.

God of the gaps is a scientific position where God and science occupy the same space. One cake with slices increasingly taken by science. In reality (sic ) it's a layer cake. Science is the bottom layer, not all pieces belong to science yet. The top layer is God. Purpose and meaning originate in this layer. Science rightly cannot explore this area, without straying into metaphysics and non empiricism.

(November 16, 2011 at 8:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Science rightly cannot explore this area, without straying into metaphysics and non empiricism.

.
Science goes deep into the roots of its subjects and religion is based on empiricism.
The original idea of god was an empirical one. Legends from all over the world report coexistence of gods and men. Philosophers, having to work on the hypothesis that the original religious ideas were based on empiricism, feel obliged to explain the phenomenon.
The only explanation they can afford is that “The ancients were incapable of transcendental thinking and whatever they thought they described it in terms of empirical thinking.”
Scientist won’t buy, of course, because those incapable of imagining metaphysical gods cannot describe metaphysical gods.

Science, therefore, does not have to stray into metaphysics. The gods turned immaterial only when, obeying theologians, climbed the ladder to the heavens.

Religion is based on empiricism? lol. Care to back up that with evidence tango?

WE are a materialist culture. The ancient cultures of the middle east absolutely were not. A non spiritual world view was unheard of back then, everything was considered in relation to the supernatural, and it's only us with our materialist only POV that have to try and understand what they said in materialist terms. All the evidence supports this.

Only a supernatural being can know empirically about supernatural reality... something it seems that 99% of atheists (including all the others participating in this thread) don't get. Well done on that point (pedantry unintended).
We can't know the supernatural empirically, but we can rationally deduce it non empirically. The aincients never described the spiritual empirically, and I'd like you to stump up examples of that.

Aincient peoples didn't always get it right, sure. We can dismiss them as myth. Rationally discordant ideas are not limited to modern times.

(November 17, 2011 at 4:38 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Religion is based on empiricism? lol.

Oh dear. The fact that it is built on vague, misty, conveniently unprovable, other dimensional thoughts and feelings, is exactly why we don't believe you. Not our fault. It is time that your god (who is made up) stepped up to the mark and did something undisputable, material and in this realm. Argument over then.

According to the bible (which is partly made up, partly 10th hand stories and partly exaggeration) he can do this and has done this - conveniently 2,000 years ago when there were no reliable methods of recording stuff factually, and when people were gullible. The reason it happened so long ago, is because he is made up. The reason he's done nothing else since, is because he's made up. The reason he won't do anything now to prove himself is because he's made up. The reason his entire existence seems to boil down to (essentially) "I need you to believe in me and worship me" is because he is made up. The reason he is ridiculously contrary in the bible, and savage, is because he's made up.

The reason he is not empirically testable is because he is made up.

Quote:WE are a materialist culture. The ancient cultures of the middle east absolutely were not. A non spiritual world view was unheard of back then, everything was considered in relation to the supernatural, and it's only us with our materialist only POV that have to try and understand what they said in materialist terms. All the evidence supports this.

And that's why god is made up, you've answered it yourself. Everything was talked of in supernatural terms because they knew no better, not because it was true! You seem to be using this point to back up your claim but you are weakening it. They answered scientifically answerable queries with "goddidit" because they didn't have enough scientific understsanding and method.

Quote:Only a supernatural being can know empirically about supernatural reality... something it seems that 99% of atheists (including all the others participating in this thread) don't get. Well done on that point (pedantry unintended).
We can't know the supernatural empirically, but we can rationally deduce it non empirically. The aincients never described the spiritual empirically, and I'd like you to stump up examples of that.

Look, you've been blown apart with your babble about non empiral god. Of course they never gave examples of him empirically because you cannot empirically prove something you've made up!

Quote:Aincient peoples didn't always get it right, sure. We can dismiss them as myth.

The only useful thing you have ever said. Ever. Extend this to your made up, invisible, non empirical mate, and we're getting somewhere. Empirically of course

(November 17, 2011 at 4:38 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Religion is based on empiricism? lol. Care to back up that with evidence tango?

The Sumerian gods had three meals a day. Homer, who recorded the ancient Greek tradition, described gods as being of the quality of the God of the Old Testament, gods who raped women and killed children. The ancient Greek philosophers did not like those gods and invented the allegorical interpretation of the myths.
No spirituality at all until the Egyptian priesthood comes into play.

The Egyptian funerary texts which date from 2500 BC are records of the oral tradition of the ancient Egyptians. As many other peoples on earth they also relate that the gods were exterminating one generation of humans after the other. The point here is that been the oldest, the Egyptian texts, carried more accurate information. They mention the judgment of living people by the gods (actually the judgment is the main and only subject of the texts) and describe the beautiful life which enjoy those who went through the judgment successfully.

The clergy presented the life after the judgment as life after death and thus sprang into existence all the spiritual marvels of soul, immortality, Netherworld and immaterial gods.

Ours is a spiritual world, not theirs.
Their gods produced offspring by means of masturbation. What sort of spirituality is that?

(November 17, 2011 at 5:45 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: And that's why god is made up, you've answered it yourself. Everything was talked of in supernatural terms because they knew no better, not because it was true!

The God, the One and Only, I agree that he was made up.
The gods of the ancients were not made up because there is nothing supernatural in raping and killing and that’s what those gods are reported to have done.

When those whose women were raped could take no more, they revolted and forced the gods to leave for some other places.
The missing gods were said to have climbed to the heavens by a ladder!!

In the Egyptian funerary texts one of the supposed prayers (which aim in helping the Pharaoh to become god) addresses the gods and says that the god who will not place the ladder for the King to ascend to the heavens, he will have no roast beef (he will smell not the foreleg he will eat not the hind leg).

If the Egyptian priests had not teach the ancient Greek philosophers about souls and immortality the religion may had faded out, or at least it would have been something very different from what it is today.

(November 17, 2011 at 5:45 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: It is time that your god (who is made up) stepped up to the mark and did something undisputable, material and in this realm. Argument over then.

You sir are being a fucking idiot, as your fellow atheist here has just explained.

---

@ tango: I already conceded that some people got it horribly wrong. That is why, in my view, only Christianity has the answer, because all of the others fall short of a coherent model, as you have (presumably) shown. To say that 'all religion' is basen on this absurdity, rather than the truth that was also half grasped by all of them, is convenient pidgeonholing from yourself.

You would claim a materialistic source for this supernatural awareness built into every human being. I would claim a solid thought process to rationalise what this supernatural awareness was. I think it's quite clear which one is closer to the truth, using occams standard.

You keep talking about "the supernatural" as though it existed. How about "the hyper-natural" (that rules over and determines the "true" nature of god and his creator)?

(November 17, 2011 at 7:55 am)fr0d0 Wrote: @ tango: I already conceded that some people got it horribly wrong. That is why, in my view, only Christianity has the answer, because all of the others fall short of a coherent model, as you have (presumably) shown.

I regret to have to remind you that Christianity is based on the God of the Hebrew tradition who is no different from the gods of the Greek or the Sumerian tradition.

There are gods of the people and gods of the theologians and scholars.
In Christianity the only popular figure is Virgin Mary who does not belong to the divine family.
In my country (Greece) she is the most loved one and she is also the one with the most temples devoted to her. She took over from goddess Athena.
Christianity is the religion of the philosophers, the scholars and the state. Not of the people. The people keep loving the Mother they have been loving for 40,000 years now.

On the other hand, Christianity is already a religion of the past.
Try to have a conversation with a theologian and you will find out that he has already moved on to a God more spiritual, more remote and more obscure, to a god who is not of our universe (I know the term in Greek but not in English).

Christianity is based nowhere and belongs to nobody. The Creator God of Christianity is the God of the Old Testament who is a God of Hatred. The son who is the god of love was supposedly a Hebrew but is believed by most Christians (the authors of the gospels included) to have been preaching in Greek.

If you start analyzing Christianity you will end up very disappointed. There is no official “Love each other”. Not even a single word of Christ (supposing that he existed) was saved because of the enormous blunder of translating his words to the then language of the elite: the Greek.

(November 17, 2011 at 7:55 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You sir are being a fucking idiot, as your fellow atheist here has just explained.

No need to resort to personal abuse just because your life is built on nothingness and I'm opening your eyes to it.

No atheists are explaining to me how I'm an idiot - in fact privately people are supporting what I say and asking me to finish you off - that's how much you are wobbled, and that is how people are perceiving it.

Awful isn't it, when people just don't accept your rhetoric? I've examined it and it is all word salad built up on assumed, unprovable/or woo woo personal opinion. There is NOTHING authorative or reasonably concluded in there. It sounds good, but there is no substance.

If god is real, he CAN and WILL BE empirically tested. I have as much authority to say that, as you have to say he can't...

So, it all brings us back to...no proof = he's made up. Nice one.

---

(November 16, 2011 at 8:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: God of the gaps is a scientific position where God and science occupy the same space. One cake with slices increasingly taken by science. In reality (sic ) it's a layer cake. Science is the bottom layer, not all pieces belong to science yet. The top layer is God. Purpose and meaning originate in this layer. Science rightly cannot explore this area, without straying into metaphysics and non empiricism.

More rubbish.

"God of the gaps is a type of theological fallacy in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to discourage reliance on teleological arguments for God's existence" - Wikipedia.

It is nothing to do with god and science occupting the same space like you say - it is, literally what it says it is - the insertion by of god by theists into the gaps of scientific knowledge.