Blasphemy and Duck Rape

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Sunni Muslims have faith in their interpretation of Islam, Shia muslims have faith in theirs

Muslims have faith in one interpretation of Abrahamic tradition, Christians support another, Jews a third. 

If faith can support directly contradictory positions then it is not a reliable path to truth as both cannot be correct.

[badgerx16]

Just now, trousers said:

Just because an activity existed before someone else carried out the sane activity doesn't necessarily mean they did it just because it pre-existed. They might have had their own reasons for doing something that others happened to have done before. 

 

Obviously the Kings were part of a gift giving tradition that predated the birth of Jesus.

[badgerx16]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

If faith can support directly contradictory positions then it is not a reliable path to truth as both cannot be correct.

So you are right and the entirity of the followings of three major religious traditions are wrong ?

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, trousers said:

Just because an activity existed before someone else later carried out the same activity doesn't necessarily mean they did it just because it pre-existed. They might have had their own reasons for doing an activity that others happened to have done before for different reasons.

 

 

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Obviously the Kings were part of a gift giving tradition that predated the birth of Jesus.

 

Christianity absorbed traditions from older cultures—like virgin births, resurrections, gift-giving, December festivals, and decorated trees—to make its message more relatable and easier to adopt. These elements were already familiar in pagan religions and seasonal celebrations, so early Christians repurposed them with new meanings. This blending, known as cultural syncretism, helped the new faith spread by aligning with existing customs rather than replacing them entirely.

[trousers]

11 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Christians BELIEVE

I'm still waiting for MLG to explain why he believes that God isn't making him doubt the existence of God Himself... Surely there must be some irrefutable evidence that God isn't playing such doubters like a fiddle...?

Edited Thursday at 21:14 by trousers

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

 

Christianity absorbed traditions from older cultures—like virgin births, resurrections, gift-giving, December festivals, and decorated trees—to make its message more relatable and easier to adopt. These elements were already familiar in pagan religions and seasonal celebrations, so early Christians repurposed them with new meanings. This blending, known as cultural syncretism, helped the new faith spread by aligning with existing customs rather than replacing them entirely.

Hallelujah !

[trousers]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

 

 

Christianity absorbed traditions from older cultures—like virgin births, resurrections, gift-giving, December festivals, and decorated trees—to make its message more relatable and easier to adopt. These elements were already familiar in pagan religions and seasonal celebrations, so early Christians repurposed them with new meanings. This blending, known as cultural syncretism, helped the new faith spread by aligning with existing customs rather than replacing them entirely.

Where's your source that they 'absorbed' these ideas simply because they pre-existed rather than coincidentally deciding they were a good idea through unrelated thought processes?

[badgerx16]

Just now, trousers said:

Where's your source that they 'absorbed' these ideas simply because they pre-existed rather than coincidentally deciding they were a good idea through unrelated thought processes?

"Demonstrable evidence".

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So you are right and the entirity of the followings of three major religious traditions are wrong ?

1) Argumentum ad populum fallacy (again)

Plus even more flawed when those three religions you mention are not compatible with each other in terms of their accounts.

2) Do you agree that if a methodology allows you to support directly contradictory positions it is not a reliable path to truth?

[trousers]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

"Demonstrable evidence".

I'm not convinced that reading the minds of those that came up with the idea of Christmas is demonstrable evidence...

[Weston Super Saint]

19 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Can faith be used to support any position? If so then it can be used to support directly contradictory positions.

If it can support directly contradictory positions then it is not a reliable path to truth as both cannot be correct. 

You failed to give a reason why that is wrong! You agreed faith can be used to support 'any position'. So it is a deeply flawed path to truth.

Again, if you had any emotional intelligence you would be able to grasp the concept that different people with different belief systems can believe in constructs that are contradictory to each other.

Whether or not you believe their beliefs are correct is irrelevant.

[Turkish]

 

23 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Merry Saturnalia Turkish!

What Christian religious element is there to giving gifts? Gift giving, eating lots of food in late December, having a tree in the house all pre date Christianity! Why can't you grasp that? 

Why of all the 365 days in the year you could give gifts and eat lots of food did you just happen to do it on the same day as a Christian festival? 

Edited Thursday at 21:17 by Turkish

[badgerx16]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

1) Argumentum ad populum fallacy (again)

Plus even more flawed when those three religions you mention are not compatible with each other in terms of their accounts.

2) Do you agree that if a methodology allows you to support directly contradictory positions it is not a reliable path to truth?

1) Try to argue the point. Why does it matter that their accounts differ, the followers of each hold faith, therefore destroying your argument.

2) No.

[Matthew Le God]

4 minutes ago, trousers said:

I'm still waiting for MLG to explain why he believes that God isn't making him doubt the existence of God Himself... Surely there must be some irrefutable evidence that God isn't playing such doubters like a fiddle...?

Before we can get onto if a God is making me do something. We'd first need to establish he exists. Existence requires being spatial and temporal and if he is outside space and time, then by definition he does not exist.

[badgerx16]

What a way to spend your birthday !

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

 

Why of all the 365 days in the year you could give gifts and eat lots of food did you just happen to do it on the same day as a Christian festival? 

Christianity absorbed traditions from older cultures—like virgin births, resurrections, gift-giving, December festivals, and decorated trees—to make its message more relatable and easier to adopt. These elements were already familiar in pagan religions and seasonal celebrations, so early Christians repurposed them with new meanings. This blending, known as cultural syncretism, helped the new faith spread by aligning with existing customs rather than replacing them entirely.

[Turkish]

9 minutes ago, trousers said:

I'm still waiting for MLG to explain why he believes that God isn't making him doubt the existence of God Himself... Surely there must be some irrefutable evidence that God isn't playing such doubters like a fiddle...?

Everyone else does so god isn’t going to be an exception 

[Turkish]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Christianity absorbed traditions from older cultures—like virgin births, resurrections, gift-giving, December festivals, and decorated trees—to make its message more relatable and easier to adopt. These elements were already familiar in pagan religions and seasonal celebrations, so early Christians repurposed them with new meanings. This blending, known as cultural syncretism, helped the new faith spread by aligning with existing customs rather than replacing them entirely.

That wasnt the question. 

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

1) Try to argue the point. Why does it matter that their accounts differ, the followers of each hold faith, therefore destroying your argument.

2) No.

If a methodology allows you to take contradictory positions it is not reliable. A reliable methodology to reach truth takes you to the truth, not to two or more contradictory positions.

[trousers]

6 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Before we can get onto if a God is making me do something. We'd first need to establish he exists. Existence requires being spatial and temporal and if he is outside space and time, then by definition he does not exist.

If God does exist and he's purposely made it impossible to prove that he does exist, hasn't he played a blinder in confounding those whose whole argument is predisposed on proving He exists...?

Edited Thursday at 21:23 by trousers

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

That wasnt the question. 

Yes it was. You asked why at time of year and I pointed out Christianity absorbed a late December festival from older traditions. 

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

If God does exist and he's purposely made it impossible to prove that he does exist, hasn't he played a blinder in confounding those whose whole argument is predisposed on proving He exists...?

Is he outside of space and time?

[trousers]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Yes it was. You asked why at time of year and I pointed out Christianity allegedly absorbed a late December festival from older traditions. 

Tweaked it for you

Edited Thursday at 21:25 by trousers

[trousers]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Is he outside of space and time?

Is this the space and time concept that God invented to put doubters off the scent..? 

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

If a methodology allows you to take contradictory positions it is not reliable. A reliable methodology to reach truth takes you to the truth, not to two or more contradictory positions.

Matthew, it is quite simple. Regardless of your logical, scientific, evidence based view of reality, millions, if not billions of people have faith in something science and logic are unable to prove. Some of their positions are contradictory, some are simply slightly differing interpretations of a shared starting point. To these people the thing they believe in and have faith in is as real as the keyboard you are typing your responses on.

There is absolutely nothing you can do or say that will alter this 'reality'.

Edited Thursday at 21:30 by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Is he outside of space and time?

He enabled the concepts of Space and Time to be constructed by the Human psyche.

[trousers]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

He enabled the concepts of Space and Time to be constructed by the Human psyche.

As least there's two of us that get it...

[badgerx16]

Just now, trousers said:

As least there's two of us that get it...

Perhaps we are a quantum entanglement.

[trousers]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Matthew, it is quite simple. Regardless of your logical, scientific, evidence based view of reality, millions, if not billions of people have faith in something science and logic are unable to prove. Some of their positions are contradictory, some are simply slightly differing interpretations af a shared starting point. To these people the thing they believe in and have faith in is as real as the keyboard you are typing your responses on.

There is absolutely nothing you can do or say that will alter this 'reality'.

I guess the ultimate question is: why does MLG care so much about what other people do or think about how or why we're here? (If indeed there's any evidence that anything actually exists). Why does it matter that other people have a different state of mind? So what if you think they're "wrong". It's doesn't matter whether they are or not. I'm not a religious person myself but I'm not obsessed with trying to prove those that are are "wrong". Bizarre. 

Edited Thursday at 21:36 by trousers

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, trousers said:

Tweaked it for you

Lots of evidence in the Bible Jesus was not born in late December. Events in the story do not match a winter birth.

Saturnalia was a Roman pagan festival held December 17–23, full of feasting, gift-giving, and celebration.

Sol Invictus (The Unconquered Sun) was celebrated on December 25—the date of the winter solstice in the Julian calendar.

As Christianity spread in the Roman Empire, Church leaders may have chosen December 25th to provide a Christian alternative to popular pagan festivals—reframing the "birth of the sun" as the "birth of the Son."

Absorbing older traditions helps spread a new cult quicker as existing followers have familiarity. 
 

[Matthew Le God]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Matthew, it is quite simple. Regardless of your logical, scientific, evidence based view of reality, millions, if not billions of people have faith in something science and logic are unable to prove. Some of their positions are contradictory, some are simply slightly differing interpretations of a shared starting point. To these people the thing they believe in and have faith in is as real as the keyboard you are typing your responses on.

There is absolutely nothing you can do or say that will alter this 'reality'.

Agumentum ad populum fallacy (again)

[badgerx16]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Lots of evidence in the Bible Jesus was not born in late December. Events in the story do not match a winter birth.

Saturnalia was a Roman pagan festival held December 17–23, full of feasting, gift-giving, and celebration.

Sol Invictus (The Unconquered Sun) was celebrated on December 25—the date of the winter solstice in the Julian calendar.

As Christianity spread in the Roman Empire, Church leaders may have chosen December 25th to provide a Christian alternative to popular pagan festivals—reframing the "birth of the sun" as the "birth of the Son."

Absorbing older traditions helps spread a new cult quicker as existing followers have familiarity. 
 

And your point is .... ?

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

I guess the ultimate question is: why does MLG care so much about what other people do or think about how or why we're here? (If indeed there's any evidence that anything actually exists). Why does it matter that other people have a different state of mind? So what if you think they're "wrong". It's doesn't matter whether they are or not. 

Because beliefs impact actions and actions impact other people. If beliefs are based on flawed thinking it can be harmful to society.

[trousers]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Lots of evidence in the Bible

How can you cite "evidence" in something that's fictional...? 

[trousers]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Because beliefs impact actions and actions impact other people. If beliefs are based on flawed thinking it can be harmful to society.

Can not believing in something also give rise to harmful conflicts and tension...? 

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, trousers said:

How can you cite "evidence" in something that's fictional...? 

If people claimed Harry Potter was born on 1st July but the evidence in the book showed he was born in November it is still evidence even though he is a fictional character. 

[badgerx16]

6 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Agumentum ad populum fallacy (again)

And that response is irrelevant You are arguing that logic and "evidence" are all that matters, and that "faith" in something is trumped by such. Using the popularity of something to disprove your point is entirely valid in this instance. You cannot dismiss belief when debating about belief systems.

Edited Thursday at 21:43 by badgerx16

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

Can not believing in something also give rise to harmful conflicts and tension...? 

Can you give an example of how not believing in something fictional has led to harmful conflicts and tension?

[trousers]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Can you give an example of how not believing in something fictional has led to harmful conflicts and tension?

No. Call me old fashioned but I usually ask a question because I don't know the answer...

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

And that response is irrelevant You are arguing that logic and "evidence" are all that matters, and that "faith" in something is trumped by such. Using the popularity of something to disprove your point is entirely valid in this instance.

It is a fallacy. The number of people that believe something has no impact on the liklihood of truth. Why would you not want to be logical and use evidence? Not doing so is by definition irrational. 

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Can you give an example of how not believing in something fictional has led to harmful conflicts and tension?

walk down the high street in Damascus, Bradford or even Batley, and tell everyone you don't believe in the mythical Allah/Mohamed or what ever, and see how it goes.

Edited Thursday at 21:47 by AlexLaw76

[Turkish]

8 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

Yes it was. You asked why at time of year and I pointed out Christianity absorbed a late December festival from older traditions. 

That doesn’t explain why you chose that day out of the other 364 in a year.

Edited yesterday at 05:53 by Turkish

[trousers]

Outta here now. Enjoy the rest of the futile debate chaps. If God does exist, I doff my hat to the mind games he's playing with the doubters. It's a joy to behold

[badgerx16]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

It is a fallacy. The number of people that believe something has no impact on the liklihood of truth. Why would you not want to be logical and use evidence? Not doing so is by definition irrational. 

Argue your point with the millions of people of faith, who are clearly, ( by your definition ), irrational. To them the "liklihood of truth" is 100%, and the "evidence" is overwhelming and irrefutable.

[egg]

13 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

This is a thread about religion, I'm discussing the religious definition of faith.

In the Bible, faith is defined as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Essentially, it's a firm belief and trust in God, even when there's no visible proof or guarantee. 

It's not. It's about blasphemy. That's about God. Many people believe in something they choose to call God without following or endorsing any religion. 

You need to understand that faith exists without religion for many. 

On that, I don't believe your earlier claim that you have never taken a leap of faith or put your faith in someone or something. Everyone has done one or both. The issue is that you're unwilling to acknowledge the reality as you understand where conceding it will take the discussion. 

Edited yesterday at 06:31 by egg

[egg]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

MLG, does your "evidence" have to be physical, or can it be theoretical ?

Do you believe in Black Holes or Dark Matter ? What about the Big Bang, or the end of the Universe ?

 

3 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

There is demonstrable evidence for black holes and the 'Big bang'. Where is the demonstrable evidence for the God of the Bible?

I know an esteemed Physicist. He believes in the creation theory, God, but is not religious. His explanation is fascinating. On that, many men of science are men of God. Einstein being one, even discounting coincidence as a thing, but rather considering them reminders of God's existence. The Wright Brothers were engineers who put faith in their plane doing what they hoped it would, despite all evidence suggesting it wouldn't. 

[egg]

7 hours ago, egg said:

 

Edited yesterday at 06:32 by egg

[Matthew Le God]

11 hours ago, egg said:

 

I know an esteemed Physicist. He believes in the creation theory, God, but is not religious. His explanation is fascinating. On that, many men of science are men of God. Einstein being one, even discounting coincidence as a thing, but rather considering them reminders of God's existence. 

What is his explanation?

He isn't going to be using science to make leap to God, so him being a scientist is irrelevant. 

[Matthew Le God]

11 hours ago, egg said:

On that, I don't believe your earlier claim that you have never taken a leap of faith or put your faith in someone or something. Everyone has done one or both. The issue is that you're unwilling to acknowledge the reality as you understand where conceding it will take the discussion. 

You can base things on previous actions as evidence. 

[egg]

51 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

What is his explanation?

He isn't going to be using science to make leap to God, so him being a scientist is irrelevant. 

I CBA to set it out mate, too broad minded for you to comprehend. 

Your latter point is idiotic. The point, simply, is that people can see beyond science, even scientists.