Does the Haiti earthquake prove that there is no god?

Reading your post created quite a good feeling in me.

But I must tell you that either that little devil deep inside, or the sarcasm bug hit hard.
A thought came to me that you need to relay this information that created such feeling of calm in me to those in Congress and the White House. Perhaps they could learn something from the gems of wisdom embodied in you short message!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saheli

That's the sad part for me. We are all doing the best we can to figure out what the life around us means. If someone decides there are no gods, if someone decides there are many, if someone decides there is only one, if someone decides that god is really a state of mind...whatever a person believes, why can't other people just leave it alone? There is nothing worse than for someone to attack the way you feel about something and like Thorne said, especially when all they have to defend it is some type of, "Trust me..I know better." That's just insulting. People aren't stupid, and no matter what anyone believes, I don't think that anyone who believes something hasn't thought it through. So I wish that in this area people could just be more understanding. You don't believe the way I do? Fine...you have your reasons, and I have mine. I don't understand why people in this world can't just leave it at that.

I feel like the best thing I can do in life is try to figure out what's important to me, to try my best to not take those things for granted, and to try and leave a positive impact on those around me. It is definitely not my job to try and tell others what to think, and I'm pretty sure we can all agree that people who do that are not only annoying but leave a negative impact. 13'sbadkitty, I think it's really good that you don't try to shove your beliefs down your children's throats. I wish that more people would do the same. This world would be a much more peaceful place if we would just respect the fact that we are all intelligent creatures doing the best we can with what we have.

---

Thorne
"That works for me! Keep religion out of the schools and the government and I'll be happy to keep science and government out of the churches."

I think we might all be better off if we could keep Government out of the schools!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

So, predestination. The future is fixed and there's nothing we can do to change it. In which case, you have no choice in whether you believe or not. Your path is programmed from the moment of creation.

Sorry, I "choose" not to believe this.

---

I am going to go with you on this point. I believe predestination is easily disproven. But those that believe in it will not accept the proof. Since the proof is based on choice and they will state that the choice was already decided.

Thorne has his opinions and he is not shy about sharing them. I would not accuse him a laying ridicule on the beliefs of others. The comments about "belief in fantasies" does not rise to that level.
He is perfectly willing to allow you those beliefs, but not PC enough to avoid telling you that he thinks you are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian 2411

It is your choice not to believe Thorn, that is what the free world is all about, freedom of choice, but don’t mock others that do believe. Neither should you mock the theory of the past being changed once it has been set, and yes I mean set. If you went back in time and saved all those lives that were being lost in WW Two, by killing Hitler before the war even started, then Both the UK and the USA would be in the same predicament as China with its population explosion and there would be no Israel. Once that war had been won our countries futures had been re-set, and this will keep taking place to the end of time, whether you choose to believe or not.




If your wife was run over by a car while you were at work, [and I pray to God this never takes place]. Once you found out, you would be driving across town like a madman trying to get to the hospital, and in your mind you would be saying [God please let her be ok]. Thank you for stating the obvious.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian 2411

Ok Thorn get your thinking cap around this idea, it is something that has fasinated my mind for a long time. No one really knows anything about the universe that we live in, and even less about how it was created, ok that theory about the big bang, for those that thought of that , well let them live with it because it is only educated guess work, so now hear is my theory as daft as it might seem. The universe is a molacule of a lump of steel, the earth is an atom of that molacule, and the person that made the steel is God, all hail to the steel workers; and before you ask, no i have no idea if the steel workers god is real or if he has one. LoL

Regards ian 2411

---

Nothing new there! I developed that concept when I first learned about the atom and compared it to the solar system, back in grad school (pre space flight if you must know).

Just as there is no concrete evidence that "dark matter" exists!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I've never said it does. I've also never claimed that science proves that God does not exist. In fact, as I've often said, no one can prove that anything does not exist. It's impossible to prove a negative. All we can do is say that there is no evidence to show that something exists, or perhaps show that the existence of item A would mean that item B could not exist, but since item B does exist then item A cannot exist.

And tomorrow, when we prove the existence of item A and yet item B still exists, a whole new field of science will be born! Hallelujah!



Miracles have been known to happen.

Haven't they?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tedteague

this is probably not going to be read, and im admittedly late to the table, but the earthquake shows nothing. There is nothing inherently evil in an earthquake, it is a natural occurence due to the tectonic shifting in the earth (or something like that). If this happened and nobody was hurt, it would not be considered evil

---

I red you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

There are fallacies in history books as well.
All likely the result of putting pen to paper! I hope that is the reason, anyway.
I suppose the big thing is; why does it need to proven either way?

---

Sadly, this is quite true. History is, indeed, written by the victors. But recognizing that fact is the first step in correcting the fallacies. And the further removed we are from an historical event, the more likely we are to understand all aspects of that event.

Proving historical events is important because of the understanding we gain of the people involved and the effects of these events upon our own times. Proof of God? I don't need it. And if you have faith, then you don't need it, either. But if you want ME to believe in YOUR god, then you're definitely going to need proof. Verifiable, testable proof.

I am no longer sure that it is the "victors" that are writing history. Seems that a whole lot of PC activists have decided that they can win the "hearts and minds" of the "young skulls full of mush" by writing history to suit their personal preferences.

One thing that must be made clear here is I have never asked ANYONE to believe in anything that is considered to be God. I can, however, expect and ask a person to act in accordance those precepts that are desireous of civilized polite society everywhere.
Do not forget I am the one that says that in the basic tenents there is no difference among religions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Sadly, this is quite true. History is, indeed, written by the victors. But recognizing that fact is the first step in correcting the fallacies. And the further removed we are from an historical event, the more likely we are to understand all aspects of that event.

Proving historical events is important because of the understanding we gain of the people involved and the effects of these events upon our own times. Proof of God? I don't need it. And if you have faith, then you don't need it, either. But if you want ME to believe in YOUR god, then you're definitely going to need proof. Verifiable, testable proof.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

I am no longer sure that it is the "victors" that are writing history. Seems that a whole lot of PC activists have decided that they can win the "hearts and minds" of the "young skulls full of mush" by writing history to suit their personal preferences.

---

The concepts are the same, though. The facts remain constant, but the interpretations can vary. I would prefer to teach the kids the facts and let them make their own conclusions, but for some reason the idea of people actually thinking for themselves is hateful to some people.

Quote:

---

One thing that must be made clear here is I have never asked ANYONE to believe in anything that is considered to be God. I can, however, expect and ask a person to act in accordance those precepts that are desireous of civilized polite society everywhere.

---

That's a laudable goal, for sure. But are you one of those who affirms that those precepts can only come from a belief in a god? Or can you accept the idea that a person can follow no gods and still be a good, civilized person? Unfortunately, there are far too many people who are willing to believe the former rather than the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

That's a laudable goal, for sure. But are you one of those who affirms that those precepts can only come from a belief in a god? Or can you accept the idea that a person can follow no gods and still be a good, civilized person? Unfortunately, there are far too many people who are willing to believe the former rather than the latter.

---

I would suppose that you would conclude that I am. Since I, based on on study, concluded many years ago that there is, basically, no difference among religions at the root.
Much like I discovered, before leaving high school that skin color had nothing to do with quality of the person. Color has no bearing on the goodness or badness of the person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

I would suppose that you would conclude that I am. Since I, based on on study, concluded many years ago that there is, basically, no difference among religions at the root.
Much like I discovered, before leaving high school that skin color had nothing to do with quality of the person. Color has no bearing on the goodness or badness of the person.

---

I'm not assuming anything about you. I agree with you that religions are basically identical. It's mostly a matter of control. The priesthoods use well known propaganda and mind control techniques to control their flocks.

I spent 12 years in Catholic schools and realized long before I graduated that the whole thing was a crock. It took me a long time to overcome the teachings of the Church, though. Including the subtle, but definite, racism involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I'm not assuming anything about you. I agree with you that religions are basically identical. It's mostly a matter of control. The priesthoods use well known propaganda and mind control techniques to control their flocks.

I spent 12 years in Catholic schools and realized long before I graduated that the whole thing was a crock. It took me a long time to overcome the teachings of the Church, though. Including the subtle, but definite, racism involved.

---

I spent 13 years in the same Catholic school (singular)! No failures by the way!
I did have a problem with racism but not from within the church or school. My teachings from them were in opposition to my dad's view. But he did work midnights on the CTA subway. So he got to see a lot of the less than desirable people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

All I said was God has not been disproven.

---

Nor has the Flying Spaghetti Monster. My gods have been around a lot longer, so I could "logically" argue that the burden of proof is on newer religions.

Religions doctrines are by their nature incapable of disproof, since any contrary evidence can be handwaved (either the Devil did it, or God did it to test our faith). Absence of disproof is not proof, as Russell's Teapot famously shows.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

It depends on how you look at it. It proves or disprove a divine being. Some Christians when they see something good happen, they say that is work of God. When I don't see what they see. I won't deny in a creator, but my opinion that this divine being is not a puppet master. The work have been done, that's what the universe shows.

The universe is beyond brilliant. It goes to the simple question is the glass half empty or half full? This universe with the Gods or not, is just a enigma. I am still blown away by the simple things, I am the one who will stand in the rain, while I see people running from it. I also served in the Navy, I seen the wrath of god on the ocean then out of the blue, the storm goes away and the ocean becomes calm. Now that is so freaking cool.:o

Nuff said!

Nor is absence of proof, disproof!
Don't get me started on "contrary evidence can be handwaved". Been doing some recent reading on religion that engages ( nevermind).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

Nor has the Flying Spaghetti Monster. My gods have been around a lot longer, so I could "logically" argue that the burden of proof is on newer religions.

Religions doctrines are by their nature incapable of disproof, since any contrary evidence can be handwaved (either the Devil did it, or God did it to test our faith). Absence of disproof is not proof, as Russell's Teapot famously shows.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Nor is absence of proof, disproof!
Don't get me started on "contrary evidence can be handwaved". Been doing some recent reading on religion that engages ( nevermind).

---

No, don't pull back. Your opinions are just as welcome here as anyone else's. I, for one, would like to hear what you have to say. While I can't say I always agree with your conclusions, your research of facts is generally first-rate.

And you are right in your assertion that absence of proof in not disproof. I think we can all agree on that.

But I think we can also agree that after 10,000 years of trying to prove that 2+2=5, the lack of such proof is a pretty definitive assertion that the assumption is most probably wrong.

Only no one's been trying to prove what your saying...the whole prove this or that thing has basically been a modern contrivance...the answer has allways been there its 42.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

[B][COLOR="Pink"]Only no one's been trying to prove what your saying...the whole prove this or that thing has basically been a modern contrivance...

---

That's mostly because to even suggest that dogma might be wrong was punishable by death. That kind of thinking has a tendency to promote uniformity, at least in public.

Quote:

---

the answer has allways been there its 42.

---

Well, sure. That's obvious NOW!

No not at all, people used to whorship multiple gods and even adopt and intermingle them all without ever so much as having their existance or non-existance cross their minds in any signifigant way in which it was recorded for posterity.

As for who's god or godess is the oldest....smh, lets not even pretend to go there folks, every cultures pantheon has an origins of the world mythology that states their gods were there at the begining.

The world doesnt revolve around your chatholic church, nor is your church as evil as you would like it to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

No not at all, people used to whorship multiple gods and even adopt and intermingle them all without ever so much as having their existance or non-existance cross their minds in any signifigant way in which it was recorded for posterity.

---

Worshiping multiple gods does not mean allowing the worship of all gods. Ancient Egyptian pharaohs would often declare one particular god to be the chief god during the pharaoh's reign, and woe betide any who did not bow down to that god. I'm not familiar with the Oriental religions, so I can't comment there, but I know that the Romans were considered unusual in that they did not force their conquered subjects to convert to the Roman religion. Once the Catholic Church took over most of Europe through the Holy Roman Empire, the Inquisition tried to make short work of the worship of any other gods. We can all see how intolerant Islam has been shown to be, and at least here in the US, the religious right has become quite vocal, and occasionally physical, about suppressing non-Christians, especially Muslims and atheists.

It's been a relatively common thread throughout the history of Western civilization, and I believe in the Aztec, Maya and Inca cultures as well.

As for which gods are oldest, a study of religion will show that virtually all religions trace their roots back to the very first historical references of gods. The names may change, and the details get blurred and mixed, but the tracks are there to be followed. Neither Christianity nor Islam, for example, would exist without the solid background of Judaism, and Judaism itself was preceded by older religions, which I'm sure were derived from still older religions. All of the gods trace back to the very dawn of history, and probably beyond.

And as for the Catholic Church, I don't want it to be evil. But modern communications and education have shown that it is indeed far more evil than anyone ever knew. History has shown that the Vatican has been a barrier to human advancement throughout its history, using its power to control and suppress large portions of the world's populations, breeding poverty and misery while claiming to fight against them.

The greatest advantage of modern communications, especially the internet, is that the kinds of atrocities the Vatican condones and even commits can no longer be kept hidden from the world. Within minutes of something happening reports are spread far and wide, disseminated irretrievably, exposing government and religious leaders for the cowardly hypocrites they truly are.

But you are right, denu: the Catholic Church is not as evil as I thought it was. It's far, far worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

No, don't pull back. Your opinions are just as welcome here as anyone else's. I, for one, would like to hear what you have to say. While I can't say I always agree with your conclusions, your research of facts is generally first-rate.

And you are right in your assertion that absence of proof in not disproof. I think we can all agree on that.

But I think we can also agree that after 10,000 years of trying to prove that 2+2=5, the lack of such proof is a pretty definitive assertion that the assumption is most probably wrong.

---

But 2+2=10

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Only no one's been trying to prove what your saying...the whole prove this or that thing has basically been a modern contrivance...the answer has allways been there its 42.

---

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

But 2+2=10

---

Only if you were clumsy with that chainsaw.