False prophets, false cults, and religions

Quote from kharvel : Which god? Choose one or more: 1) Ahura Mazda 2) Brahma 3) Christian god 4) Buddha 5) Shiva 6) Krishna 7) Islam god 8) Baal 9) Zeus 10) Apollo 11) Mormon god 12) Vishnu 13) Ganesh 14) The Great Spirit ..... <n> etc.

It was a joke, mate. You really don't know I'm an atheist?

Quote from Mixels : It was a joke, mate. You really don't know I'm an atheist?

No and I don't care.

Quote from kharvel : Which god? Choose one or more: 1) Ahura Mazda 2) Brahma 3) Christian god 4) Buddha 5) Shiva 6) Krishna 7) Islam god 8) Baal 9) Zeus 10) Apollo 11) Mormon god 12) Vishnu 13) Ganesh 14) The Great Spirit ..... <n> etc.

No sense in choosing. They are all simply different names for the same god.
It's all about how believers choose to interpret the focal point of their faith.

Quote from Iaaaiws : No sense in choosing. They are all simply different names for the same god.

You clearly don't know your religions.

Hindus and Buddhists do not have a single god. They have multiple and they are not the same.

What about the Greek gods? Is Zeus the same as Apollo and vice versa?

Quote from kharvel : You clearly don't know your religions. Hindus and Buddhists do not have a single god. They have multiple and they are not the same. What about the Greek gods? Is Zeus the same as Apollo and vice versa?

Where did I say anything about religions?

There is only one God. He is just seen differently by different people and they hold on fiercely to their personal perceptions.

Quote from TRNT : Please give an example of this. Thanks. For example "vinegar is wet" (not a definition btw ) is consistent with science and also supported by science.

If this is your threshold, then nearly any work of fiction could be considered 'supported by science'. Take 'The DaVinci Code' for example. A historian would note that it references many actual building, streets, cars, objects, and even some people. However that doesn't mean that any events it describes actually took place. The same could be said about Shakespeare's novels, the Odyssey, or Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.


As darkfrog has been trying to explain, just including some common observations does not necessarily make something historically accurate.

Quote from Iaaaiws : Where did I say anything about religions? There is only one God. He is just seen differently by different people and they hold on fiercely to their personal perceptions.

Your answer implies that only a SINGLE god can exist at any one time. Certain faiths believe that multiple gods can exist at the same time and for them, there is no such thing as "only one god". Why are you assuming otherwise?

Quote from kharvel : Your answer implies that only a SINGLE god can exist at any one time. Certain faiths believe that multiple gods can exist at the same time and for them, there is no such thing as "only one god". Why are you assuming otherwise?

Man can come up with an infinite number of interpretations of what he believes God to be. Why would assuming there is more than one God be any more accurate than assuming there is only one God that is seen differently by everyone?

Quote from kharvel : But a follower of Zoroaster or a follower of Buddha would accuse you of not having any understanding of their own respective holy texts just as you would accuse them of the same with regards to the Christian bible. In fact, they would argue that their respective religion cannot be logically considered as a false religion and they would further claim that too much of their respective religion is backed by science and evidence, even if a lot of it is circumstantial. What rebuttal do you have for these followers of other religion? Will you now use the atheist's arguments to debunk their claims?

I'd simply ask how does their holy scripture correlate with modern day science? And what prophesies of theirs have come true compared to the bible? They won't be able to say much after that.

Quote from Iaaaiws : Man can come up with an infinite number of interpretations of what he believes God to be. Why would assuming there is more than one God be any more accurate than assuming there is only one God that is seen differently by everyone?

That is precisely my point. Your made the following comment:

Quote from Iaaaiws : No sense in choosing. They are all simply different names for the same god.

Why do you ask others to assume the thing you believe in when the opposite thing (more than one god may exist at the same time and they are not the same) may be true as well?

If you believe that all of the listed gods are the one and same then just say "I choose all as the representatives of a single god". There is no point in telling others to make the same assumption that you just did.

Quote from ShengD : If this is your threshold, then nearly any work of fiction could be considered 'supported by science'. Take 'The DaVinci Code' for example. A historian would note that it references many actual building, streets, cars, objects, and even some people. However that doesn't mean that any events it describes actually took place. The same could be said about Shakespeare's novels, the Odyssey, or Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. As darkfrog has been trying to explain, just including some common observations does not necessarily make something historically accurate.

That's true for one or even two occurrences within such a book. But there are many in the bible. Coincidence is not a probability.

Quote from charles052 : I'd simply ask how does their holy scripture correlate with modern day science?

They can come up with an equal number or more examples of correlation that you could come up with regards to the Christian scriptures. For example, if the Buddhist scriptures have far more examples of said correlation, would you accept the Buddha as more legitimate than the Christian god? If not, then what is the point of your question above?

Quote : And what prophesies of theirs have come true compared to the bible? They won't be able to say much after that.

They can come up with examples of prophesies that they claim to have come true. You may reject their interpretation of the truth of the prophesies but then the same rejection logic can be applied to the truth of your own religion's prophesies. It is a Catch-22.

Quote from kharvel : That is precisely my point. Your made the following comment: Why do you ask others to assume the thing you believe in when the opposite thing (more than one god may exist at the same time and they are not the same) may be true as well? If you believe that all of the listed gods are the one and same then just say "I choose all as the representatives of a single god". There is no point in telling others to make the same assumption that you just did.

How is that different from you posting a list of what you assume to be different gods and then telling others to "Choose one or more"? In fact, you are the one specifically suggesting that others assume what you seem to believe. I never said anything about anyone else at all. I just stated that there is no sense in choosing.

When discussing God isn't pretty much any statement based on personal beliefs since there really isn't any concrete evidence (at least not to the point of convincing anyone to change their mind)? Seems kind of redundant to have to spell it out for each statement.

Quote from ShengD : If this is your threshold, then nearly any work of fiction could be considered 'supported by science'. Take 'The DaVinci Code' for example. A historian would note that it references many actual building, streets, cars, objects, and even some people. However that doesn't mean that any events it describes actually took place. The same could be said about Shakespeare's novels, the Odyssey, or Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. As darkfrog has been trying to explain, just including some common observations does not necessarily make something historically accurate.

What do you think my threshold is?

Question: does molten copper wet graphite?

Answer method 1: pour molten copper and see if it wets graphite. Publish the results.

Answer method 2: study physiochemical properties of the two. Publish the results. Perhaps even verify your prediction through method 1.

At any rate, here is the underlying comment that peaked my interest:

Quote from darkfrog : Making statements that are consistent with science is not the same thing as having claims supported by science.

Any comment on that?

Any example of something that is "consistent" with science but is not "supported" by science?