OT - Is there an All Powerful entity out there?

pllb

Wallace1492 wrote:

pllb wrote:

I voted no, but as I think someone else already mentioned there is a "god" in existence. In my house I have my daughters trained to greet any TV appearance by Martin O'Neil with excited cries of "look Mummy, god is on TV again!", this causes much annoyance to my long suffering catholic partner :twisted: Being a Wycombe Wanderers fan Martin is regarded as the one and only higher being for the genuine miracles he performed at our small, non-league club. Let me hear you praise the lord, come on Villa fans you know it is the truth!

Being from a certain persuation in Glasgow, The Lord, Saint Martin "GoD" O'Neil gets my vote too!! Oh for one more Larsson goal on the 21st May 2003.....

This could be the start of a new sect maybe, at least there is proof that the icon we worship is infact real

Wallace1492

pllb wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

pllb wrote:

I voted no, but as I think someone else already mentioned there is a "god" in existence. In my house I have my daughters trained to greet any TV appearance by Martin O'Neil with excited cries of "look Mummy, god is on TV again!", this causes much annoyance to my long suffering catholic partner :twisted: Being a Wycombe Wanderers fan Martin is regarded as the one and only higher being for the genuine miracles he performed at our small, non-league club. Let me hear you praise the lord, come on Villa fans you know it is the truth!

Being from a certain persuation in Glasgow, The Lord, Saint Martin "GoD" O'Neil gets my vote too!! Oh for one more Larsson goal on the 21st May 2003.....

This could be the start of a new sect maybe, at least there is proof that the icon we worship is infact real

The immortals:

bails87

As a Blues fan I can categorically say that Martin o'Neill is just a concept created by Villa fans who couldnt explain why their goalkeepers had stopped giving us goals! :P Only kidding, I actually quite liked Villa last season, and Martin is a great manager but I'm not allowed to admit that in our house!

Back on topic....if he/she/it is all powerful and all knowing, then I was made how 'it' wanted me to be, and 'it' knows already exactly how everything will play out. So me not believing is what 'it' wanted all along.

King Donut

bails87 wrote:

Oh, and by the way, you should give me a tenner a week. I control the afterlife, and if you don't then I'll send you somewhere horrible. If you do, the you'll get to hang out with Thor and Zeus and all the other cool gods! If of course I don't control the afterlife, then you haven't lost much have you? So it's logical to give me money. Cheque or PayPal will be fine!

But you're changing everything as soon as you say I have to give you a tenner every week. One of the premises of the argument is that the worst that can happen to me if I have faith is that I am unknowingly wrong once I die. Where as in your case it would be that I have also given you a tenner every week during my life.

bails87

Yeah, and the time I'd give up to go to church/mosque/temple, and the thing's I'd miss out on, and the fear and shame that would be imposed on me by religion would be worth (to me) paying £10 a week to avoid. It's not costless. You can't just flick a switch, say "I believe now" and then go to heaven (assuming it exists in one form or another) when you die without actually putting some effort in.

But why your religion? What makes billions of people wrong and you right?

Edit: And the key flaw with that argument is that any being which controls the 'afterlife' must be 'all-knowing'. Therefore 'it' knows that you didn't really believe, you just pretended too to get into heaven.

If I said to you "If you believe that the sky is green then I'll give you a million pounds" then you'd tell me that you believed it. But if I knew everything, then I'd know that really you knew that the sky was blue, so saying you believed it was green just to get what you want was a lie.

You seem to be suggesting that people should fake belief in order to decieve an all-powerful, all-knowing being, which is surely impossible.

Wallace1492

bails87 wrote:

Yeah, and the time I'd give up to go to church/mosque/temple, and the thing's I'd miss out on, and the fear and shame that would be imposed on me by religion would be worth (to me) paying £10 a week to avoid. It's not costless. You can't just flick a switch, say "I believe now" and then go to heaven (assuming it exists in one form or another) when you die without actually putting some effort in.

But why your religion? What makes billions of people wrong and you right?

Why the religions that exist? People are bullied, brainwashed, co-erced and manipulated into them.

They are not costless at all, most will demand money, penance, and other offerings, manipulating the people

bails87

Wallace1492 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Yeah, and the time I'd give up to go to church/mosque/temple, and the thing's I'd miss out on, and the fear and shame that would be imposed on me by religion would be worth (to me) paying £10 a week to avoid. It's not costless. You can't just flick a switch, say "I believe now" and then go to heaven (assuming it exists in one form or another) when you die without actually putting some effort in.

But why your religion? What makes billions of people wrong and you right?

Why the religions that exist? People are bullied, brainwashed, co-erced and manipulated into them.
They are not costless at all, most will demand money, penance, and other offerings, manipulating the people

I know, I just wondered why donut believed his or her chosen religion was the correct one. The country you're born in, and the religion of your parents (and by definition gandparents, great-grandparents, etc) will decide your 'chosen' faith in the vast, vast majority of cases.

As it happens, my parents would say C of E if asked for their religion, but they haven't been to church since they were kids, apart from for weddings/christenings. But for some reason they were suprised when me, my brother and sister all realised we didn't believe in anything! I think we actually made them question their beliefs, not through being aggressive or knocking them for it. But they realised that it's not necessarily the 'default setting'. You can be a decent, moral indivdual, without being scared of a beardy man on a cloud.

Flasheart

The devil you say !!
:arrow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UbqZ_oN5do&feature=related

King Donut

bails87 wrote:

Yeah, and the time I'd give up to go to church/mosque/temple, and the thing's I'd miss out on, and the fear and shame that would be imposed on me by religion would be worth (to me) paying £10 a week to avoid. It's not costless. You can't just flick a switch, say "I believe now" and then go to heaven (assuming it exists in one form or another) when you die without actually putting some effort in.

All I'm saying is that there is a rationale that people use to convince themselves that having faith is a good thing. So the power that religion holds can come, seemingly a priori, from within the individual. It's not just an ancient method of crowd control.

bails87 wrote:

But why your religion? What makes billions of people wrong and you right?

I don't follow a religion.

As we've already said God and religion are two different things. Religion is a product of man, not of God. Just like you, there are many things I hate about religion:
- It has created mutually exclusive Gods.
- It possesses a monopoly on ethics and morality.
- It is abused by people in power for personal gain.
etc...

Ultimately religion has shot itself in the foot and convinced more people to not believe!

But that doesn't stop me from holding a panentheistic view that everything in the universe is governed by one ultimate power. The problem is that we don't yet have the capacity to comprehend how that universal power exists, and we keep trying conceive it within human terms which is how we invented the common conception of God.

Jay dubbleU

I think the universal power that you describe is actually a series of physical laws which have developed from the nature of the matter which they govern.

Personally I still think the Supreme Being pressed 'Start' and then either ran away or lost interest

Bugly

no and does it really matter?

Mike Healey

jimjamyaharr wrote:

y cant superman get laid

You trying getting to it when your underpants are speedos and are outside your tights.

always_tyred

Wallace1492 wrote:

I have faith that Craig Levein will do well with Scotland

In the middle ages (2003-2006) people used to believe that Scotland were a major footballing nation in a temporary decline.

Science has since show this to be completely impossible and that the footballing universe is far far larger than the Scots ever realised, and still expanding. Latterly, since doubt has been cast on the existence of world class England footballers, even the "Old Enemy" understanding of footballing greatness has been widely discredited.

Many people are now of the view that Scotland are crap, were always crap, that the Vogts events were actually a comparative high point. A recent publication postulates that a single game in 1978 can actually be explained by random chance.

cjcp

Always Tyred wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

I have faith that Craig Levein will do well with Scotland

A recent publication postulates that a single game in 1978 can actually be explained by random chance.

And that they only qualified for the 1986 World Cup by virtue of a dodgy penalty.

But there was that 1-0 victory against England in the '80s. And they did score first against Brazl in '82.

But, on the whole, I agree. (Wales aren't any better, mind.)

Dowse40

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Yes

The Holy Trinity of Cowell, Cole and McElderry

You're all going to be so sorry for what you did.

The holy trinity of a w4nk3r, a charver slapper and a fairy is that?

The tosser factor winner does NOT deserve to go straight to numberone in the charts. Just because you "win" some poxy talentless show means bu66er all.
Joe Mcelderberry is not the be all of music and the turd factor is a load of media hyped crap

tailwindhome

Dowse40 wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Yes

The Holy Trinity of Cowell, Cole and McElderry

You're all going to be so sorry for what you did.

The holy trinity of a w4nk3r, a charver slapper and a fairy is that?

The tosser factor winner does NOT deserve to go straight to numberone in the charts. Just because you "win" some poxy talentless show means bu66er all.
Joe Mcelderberry is not the be all of music and the turd factor is a load of media hyped crap

MTBer?

Trailradar

Believe...... in....... what...........?

deptfordmarmoset

Always Tyred wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

I have faith that Craig Levein will do well with Scotland

In the middle ages (2003-2006) people used to believe that Scotland were a major footballing nation in a temporary decline.

Science has since show this to be completely impossible and that the footballing universe is far far larger than the Scots ever realised, and still expanding. Latterly, since doubt has been cast on the existence of world class England footballers, even the "Old Enemy" understanding of footballing greatness has been widely discredited.

Many people are now of the view that Scotland are crap, were always crap, that the Vogts events were actually a comparative high point. A recent publication postulates that a single game in 1978 can actually be explained by random chance.

Class post - but you're a cruel, cruel man, Always Tyred :P

Trailradar

Makes for interesting dissection the results from this poll (dated 30th Dec 2009) - 78% of you say 'no' we are alone BUT at the same time I bet >78%, or pretty close, done 'Xmas' this year, and I bet a majority of you would love a church wedding (well probably the women any how), with the bells ringing, the vicar, confetti and the lovely stained glass windows in the background (and not forgetting the vows).

Another interesting point is that someone once stated that christianity helps with the moral fabric of the UK. Does this mean the majority of the Bikeradar forum users who submitted a answer to this poll have lost moral and ethical fabric (excuse the rather arrogant/standoffish and devils advocate stance,)?

UK would be rather a dull place without Xmas, xmas family get togethers, no national identity, no sense of traditition, no presents and no 'coming home for christmas' by Chris Rea or who ever.

I bet crime would soar without church/christianity and divorce rates would rocket and goodness knows what else. I bet all those 'sink-estates' would be a much more pleasant environment if they were all devoted christians, and believed in the omnipotent geezer upstairs.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Trailradar wrote:

I bet all those 'sink-estates' would be a much more pleasant environment if they were all devoted christians, and believed in the omnipotent geezer upstairs.

Ah, but Christianity (which the poll is not about) isn't the only route to belief in an all-powerful entity (which the poll is about).

Stick a mix of people, all of whom believe in the omnipotent geezer upstairs, but of differing fatihs, in a "sink-estate" and you can get a powderkeg.

roger_merriman

Trailradar wrote:

Makes for interesting dissection the results from this poll (dated 30th Dec 2009) - 78% of you say 'no' we are alone BUT at the same time I bet >78%, or pretty close, done 'Xmas' this year, and I bet a majority of you would love a church wedding (well probably the women any how), with the bells ringing, the vicar, confetti and the lovely stained glass windows in the background (and not forgetting the vows).

Another interesting point is that someone once stated that christianity helps with the moral fabric of the UK. Does this mean the majority of the Bikeradar forum users who submitted a answer to this poll have lost moral and ethical fabric (excuse the rather arrogant/standoffish and devils advocate stance,)?

UK would be rather a dull place without Xmas, xmas family get togethers, no national identity, no sense of traditition, no presents and no 'coming home for christmas' by Chris Rea or who ever.

I bet crime would soar without church/christianity and divorce rates would rocket and goodness knows what else. I bet all those 'sink-estates' would be a much more pleasant environment if they were all devoted christians, and believed in the omnipotent geezer upstairs.

um do you know the history of christmas?

it's a mish mash of victorian kitch and pre christian customs.

cjcp

Trailradar wrote:

I bet crime would soar without church/christianity and divorce rates would rocket and goodness knows what else. /quote]

On the other hand, the number of wars might go down...

Wallace1492

Greg66 wrote:

Trailradar wrote:

I bet all those 'sink-estates' would be a much more pleasant environment if they were all devoted christians, and believed in the omnipotent geezer upstairs.

Ah, but Christianity (which the poll is not about) isn't the only route to belief in an all-powerful entity (which the poll is about).

Stick a mix of people, all of whom believe in the omnipotent geezer upstairs, but of differing fatihs, in a "sink-estate" and you can get a powderkeg.

Call it West Belfast, and you need to have a "Berlin Wall" built to divide the sections.
Call it "East Jerusalem", and although the alleged homeland of "The Saviour" it has more than its share of neighborly differences.

Don't get me started on Christians!!!

PBo

Trailradar wrote:

Makes for interesting dissection the results from this poll (dated 30th Dec 2009) - 78% of you say 'no' we are alone BUT at the same time I bet >78%, or pretty close, done 'Xmas' this year, and I bet a majority of you would love a church wedding (well probably the women any how), with the bells ringing, the vicar, confetti and the lovely stained glass windows in the background (and not forgetting the vows).

Xmas is a midwinter festival, hijacked by christians. Nothing wrong with wanting a "fairy tale" wedding - although I do expect non-believers to acknowledge their own hypocrisy. Church needs the money/publicity anyway, so this is a two way street.

Another interesting point is that someone once stated that christianity helps with the moral fabric of the UK. Does this mean the majority of the Bikeradar forum users who submitted a answer to this poll have lost moral and ethical fabric (excuse the rather arrogant/standoffish and devils advocate stance,)?

Even if the country is deteriorating, I would suggest that if 78% of us had no morals/ethics things would be a hell of a lot worse. This is one of the big things that p1sses me off about religion - the idea that they have a monopoly on decent behaviour. I'm perfectly capable of being nice without being scared sh1tless of what will happen when i die if I don't. Anyway, even if i was, I'd just be catholic, do what the hell I want and then confess - bingo!

UK would be rather a dull place without Xmas, xmas family get togethers, no national identity, no sense of traditition, no presents and no 'coming home for christmas' by Chris Rea or who ever.

agree - but what's this got to do with god? Unless you think chris rea is the creator and slade are his sons...

I bet crime would soar without church/christianity and divorce rates would rocket and goodness knows what else. I bet all those 'sink-estates' would be a much more pleasant environment if they were all devoted christians, and believed in the omnipotent geezer upstairs.

so you are now advocating brainwashing as a way to contol the masses???

Wallace1492

PBo wrote:

so you are now advocating brainwashing as a way to contol the masses???

Bingo!! - that is exactly what organised religion is all about. It is not a new concept at all, just to let you know, it has been around since Noah was a boy. Brainwash the masses, control them, fleece them.

DonDaddyD

Trailradar wrote:

I bet all those 'sink-estates' would be a much more pleasant environment if they were all devoted christians, and believed in the omnipotent geezer upstairs.

:shock:

History suggests differently.

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

Trailradar wrote:

I bet all those 'sink-estates' would be a much more pleasant environment if they were all devoted christians, and believed in the omnipotent geezer upstairs.

:shock:

History suggests differently.

I guess if they were ALL devoted christians, perhaps, but briefly. They'd try to out-devoted one another and you'd end up with a judean people's front/ people's front of judea situation, which would escalate and get totally out of control.

The catholics and the protestants are all devoted christians... as an example...

Oh and just believing in a bloke sitting in a cloud has been the cause of many a war. I wonder what percentage of wars/battles/loss of life/etc have been caused by religious differences...

always_tyred

DonDaddyD wrote:

Trailradar wrote:

I bet all those 'sink-estates' would be a much more pleasant environment if they were all devoted christians, and believed in the omnipotent geezer upstairs.

:shock:

History suggests differently.

+1

:? that's horribly similar to the "lets bring Christianity to the natives" thinking. It also implies that religious belief is somehow a middle class pursuit. Creepy statement.

Wallace1492

lost_in_thought wrote:

I wonder what percentage of wars/battles/loss of life/etc have been caused by religious differences...

Most of them.... and it could probably go to virtually all of them if you take it that religious differences also influence different values and other beliefs. (if we can't convert them, God says slaughter them).

For religions being peace, love, understanding, forgiveness and goodwill to all persons, they sure have had a high body count.

tailwindhome

The examples given above are of violence in the 'name of religion' rather than directly due to the truth of the religious teaching or belief.