There are about 1000 gods. Is that evidence against God?

[thomas t]

That answer sounds like a cop out

I just don't want this thread to be highjacked

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I just don't want this thread to be highjacked

What do you mean? That's the whole point of Shermer's remarks in the OP.

How would directly addressing the OP of the thread be hijacking the thread?

Did you watch your own video?

 

[Altfish]

I just don't want this thread to be highjacked

Hijacked- the question you are ducking is at the heart of the matter.

 

[Nivek001]

I never said there were truths that were not objective.

You did give preference to what you called “objective truths”, which are not any more true than any other truths you do not care to consider.

 

[Nivek001]

Please don't distort my comments. It's sloppy or dishonest or both. What I said was: "your certainty is entirely irrelevant to me."

Um, that “certainty” is in a belief which means what it is I am certain of you find irrelevant. Otherwise, what would be the point of you saying my certainty is irrelevant to you?

The mere expression of certainty to make a judgement call on makes no sense in of itself. Certainty can be had regarding any resolution, so to declare that the certainty is not relevant to you would have to be because you find what I have certainty of to be irrelevant to you, which is my belief.

The one who is being sloppy and dishonest here is you.

 

[Thief]

Some religions believe in more than one God. Surely all of those religions couldn't all be wrong?

it is written......ye ARE gods

seems to me.......
you can make any list of names you care to

but there is only ONE .....Almighty

the term is self explanatory

 

[Thief]

Instead of insisting that we are right and everyone else is wrong, perhaps we should not judge...lest we be judged. After all, only God is the judge.

if His judgement could be circumvented.....or denied

He would not be the Almighty

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

thank you for your honest question.
I personally compare it to a sports event: like tennis in the Olympic Games.
If you lose your singles, you can't win the medal for singles... but you still can as a member of a team that wins a medal.

Losing your singles match is like not recognising Jesus as your savior.
But if your family wins their match... you still could enter heaven as a member of that family.
Or if your church wins, you might go there as a member of your church... and if your nation wins you might be included in the members of your nation.
But if you lose your singles...and every team you're in loses too... then I have no hope in this case.
This is just my personal stance, I could be wrong.

So all of my family members are atheists. I'm an agnostic deist--maybe there is a god and if there is he is definitely a deist god because he doesn't make his presence known here on earth at all, doesn't answer prayers, doesn't interact with earth in the slightest. So I'm not atheist per se but I definitely don't believe the Jesus of the Bible existed. I think the Jesus of the Bible is based on one or many Yeshuas from that period 0-50 CE who were crucified as rebels of Rome and then were adopted and amalgamated into one avatar for the fledgling Christian religion. But you sound like a progressive Christian. I find that refreshing.

 

[paarsurrey]

So all of my family members are atheists. I'm an agnostic deist--maybe there is a god and if there is he is definitely a deist god because he doesn't make his presence known here on earth at all, doesn't answer prayers, doesn't interact with earth in the slightest. So I'm not atheist per se but I definitely don't believe the Jesus of the Bible existed. I think the Jesus of the Bible is based on one or many Yeshuas from that period 0-50 CE who were crucified as rebels of Rome and then were adopted and amalgamated into one avatar for the fledgling Christian religion. But you sound like a progressive Christian. I find that refreshing.

Magenta ^.
He is a Pauline Christian,as he follows the teachings of the Pauline-church instead of following the truthful teachings of Jesus, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

 

[thomas t]

What do you mean? That's the whole point of Shermer's remarks in the OP.

How would directly addressing the OP of the thread be hijacking the thread?

Did you watch your own video?

Yes. Hiwever, after 16 pages, I want this topic to be focussed on the question from the title of this thread.
There is no reason to enlarge the subject now.
Actually I don't want to discuss the whole of the video in one thread only. Its content is too dense for one thread, in my opinion.

 

[thomas t]

Thank you SAT.

doesn't answer prayers

I think he does.
I think Jesus really existed the way the Bible described it - the Bible doesn't depict Jesus as a rebel [against Rome].
And to me, that's also the answer of why he doesn't seem to be eager to show up again... in an environment in which half of people would like to kill him maybe. Like they did last time.

EDITED to add the words in red color...

 

[Thief]

maybe there is a god and if there is he is definitely a deist god because he doesn't make his presence known here on earth at all, doesn't answer prayers, doesn't interact with earth in the slightest.

the Prime Directive ......applied?

 

[Thief]

the Bible doesn't depict Jesus as a rebel.

oh yes it does.......

that's why the Pharisees wanted Him dead

 

[blü 2]

++
Ah, that's a question for another thread, I think.

Mañana, I take it?

 

[Tiberius]

You did give preference to what you called “objective truths”, which are not any more true than any other truths you do not care to consider.

If it's true, then it's objective truth.

If it's not objectively true, it's just wishful thinking.

There's nothing that is true without also being objectively true.

 

[Tiberius]

So you have tried to act act on faith and asked God in prayer if what you believe in regarding that God is true?

I did.

And God proved to me that he doesn't exist in such a way as to be indisputable.

Complete proof that God doesn't exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

IF they all are equally probable....
Well... IF.
Then...

Considering that all those who can't be disproven are all supported by the exact same type of bad evidence (hearsay, "visions", "revelations" and other unverifiable bare claims), it stands to reason that all of them are equally unlikely.

They can't all be right.
But they can all be wrong.
And considering they all make the same type of fantastical and unsupported claims, chances are rather huge that they are all wrong.

In any case, at best, there's no reason to believe one over the other. Or to believe in any of them at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

no please, that's not the game.

Off course that is the game.... Without evidence, it's impossible to evaluate the probability of any of them.

If you insinuate that all religions are equally probable to be true.... then the onus is on you to present a way of how to calculate their probability, I think. Won't you agree?

They are all equally probable in the sense that they are all backed by the same type of non-evidence.

 

[thomas t]

Mañana, I take it?

it's just another issue.
Here we are discussing if one bit of evidence can be seen as evidence against God. Or if it's rather evidence for some evolutionary need for religions, as Shermer said...

The question of whether or not there is evidence in favor of a God, is simply another matter, even if it's at the heart of the God proposition.

Personally, I also prefer more but smaller threads. For me personally, it's a matter of structure.

 

[viole]

Atheists often cite the great abundance of gods.
In my opinion, this is not evidence against God.
I believe, it rather shows that God allows other beliefs to happen, for some time at least.
Here is a video by an atheist on this matter:

If you think that every single god deserves to be scrutinized equally... check out a thousand gods then.
This would be my suggestion.

No, but it is evidence people can easily believe gods which necessarily do not exist.

Ciao

- viole