God


The root of all evil. 99% of conflicts are Religion based

Imagine fighting over who has the best imaginary friend.

If anybody been to the Vatican before it’s an eye opener. Homeless all over the streets in front of the Vatican
 
The existence of a God

Well you said "from a theological perspective ". Theologists have already decided there is a god and aren't looking for evidence that contradicts that view.. There can't be scientific evidence that there is no god as that would require evidence of non-existence.
 
The root of all evil. 99% of conflicts are Religion
I disagree with this. The root of all evil and 99% of conflicts are instigated by men, they may do it in the name of religion, or ethnicity, or territory or even non religion, but it's all about power, getting that power and retaining that power. Mind you some say/think God is a man too so hardly surprising.
 
But it doesn't mean the odds are 50/50. Because the same is true for absolutely anything else you could make up.

Should we seriously consider hobbits exist? No
Should we entertain the possibility that dementors exist? No
What about Zeus, Poseidon and Athena? No

The starting point is that such things do not exist. Until some evidence is provided there is absolutely no reason to move from that position.
Doing so is silly, irrational, almost always expensive to varying degrees and a huge waste of our valuable time.

But the odds are theoretically 50/50. A probability of 0 can only occur when something is impossible. There is no evidence to suggest that the existence of God is impossible. The existence of God is also mutually exclusive, does God exist Yes/No. In the absence of any overwhelming scientific data to screw the probability either way, then it remains 50/50 as a starting point.

You could argue subjectively or empirically that as there has been no scientifically documented sightings of God then there is a probability of 0, but as God is abstract, then this argument doesn't hold weight. You're then back to 50/50 again.
 
Homo floresiensis was very short compared to the average modern human, standing at about 1.05 metres tall. This is what earned Homo floresiensis its nickname 'the hobbit', after a fictional group of short, human-like creatures created by author J R R Tolkien.


Definitely were real once upon a time in a faraway land. Obviously Tolkien knew about this sub species.
Kent should be ashamed of himself.
Tolkien and a group of his contemporaries were constantly referencing religious understandings. Sometimes glorifying and, and often ridiculing.
I disagree with this. The root of all evil and 99% of conflicts are instigated by men, they may do it in the name of religion, or ethnicity, or territory or even non religion, but it's all about power, getting that power and retaining that power. Mind you some say/think God is a man too so hardly surprising.
One word for that whole paragraph marra.
Politics.
 
Last edited:
Well you said "from a theological perspective ". Theologists have already decided there is a god and aren't looking for evidence that contradicts that view.. There can't be scientific evidence that there is no god as that would require evidence of non-existence.

Theology relates to the study of religion, not the total acceptance of the existence of a God. That's called faith.
 
But the odds are theoretically 50/50. A probability of 0 can only occur when something is impossible. There is no evidence to suggest that the existence of God is impossible. The existence of God is also mutually exclusive, does God exist Yes/No. In the absence of any overwhelming scientific data to screw the probability either way, then it remains 50/50 as a starting point.

You could argue subjectively or empirically that as there has been no scientifically documented sightings of God then there is a probability of 0, but as God is abstract, then this argument doesn't hold weight. You're then back to 50/50 again.
Re-read what you've written and have a bit of think about it....
 
Aw haway man.
Are you really telling me Bilbo, Frodo and Samwise aren't real? I saw them on that Documentary Lord of the Rings man.

No God, fair enough. Only seen actors do that on telly, but Hobbits? REALLY?
NAH.
I've not forgotten about your height problem...sorry to tell you you're not a Hobbit...no genetic connection whatsoever. Your only hope of getting noticed is if Cuban heels come back into fashion :D

Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.
I disagree with this. The root of all evil and 99% of conflicts are instigated by men, they may do it in the name of religion, or ethnicity, or territory or even non religion, but it's all about power, getting that power and retaining that power. Mind you some say/think God is a man too so hardly surprising.
Agree, I live in a farming community, everyone has a gun yet the last crime was 27 years ago...drunk and disorderly.
 
Last edited:
Doesn’t it take god-like knowledge to be an atheist? 😀

Surely agnostic is the proper term for someone who doesn't believe in the gods of religions but can't be 100% sure that there isn't some sort of a higher force? I describe myself as an agnostic for that reason and would imagine most "atheists" to take a similar non-absolutist view.

No.

Atheist means you don't believe in any of the gods that have been proposed thus far. It doesn't mean you entirely rule out any chance that there could be one.
Agnostic is the belief that it is impossible to know if there is or isn't a god.

They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I guess most people who say either of the 2 are actually both. Here's a wiki description:
Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a demiurgic entity or entities is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.
 
I think it’s easier to assume there’s always been a universe and before the Big Bang another universe before it.
Perhaps a universe that’s recycles itself and one where it all breaks down into nothing and then to start again
But who or what designed the process?
 
No.

Atheist means you don't believe in any of the gods that have been proposed thus far. It doesn't mean you entirely rule out any chance that there could be one.
Agnostic is the belief that it is impossible to know if there is or isn't a god.

They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I guess most people who say either of the 2 are actually both. Here's a wiki description:
Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a demiurgic entity or entities is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.

I think you are a bit off in your definition of atheism. Most people define it as the belief that no god or higher power exists or could exist, not a lack of belief in the gods or higher powers proposed so far.

On that basis I prefer to think of myself as agnostic as I don't feel arrogant enough to postulate that it wouldn't be possible for some form of a higher power to exist.
 

Back
Top