Devil and God..what would you ask them?

[ggold]

Nearly all religions have elementary good things. It is the way people handle it that causes problems.

No question. But one should not need a religion to make them act in the way many religions tell them to. The ten commandments, for example. And as we have seen, people twist their religions to excuse all sorts of things - like killing those that don't agree with them.

I have often wondered whether religions are mainly for the weak. They can/do provide a fear factor to help people do the right thing. I would hope people wouldn't need that, but ...

 

[swiftjohn]

I would ask them who put the bop in the bop sha bop and the lam in the rama lama ding dong.

 

[obyrna]

As I first mentioned, the existence of a deity is a question we can not understand completely in our current state of development. Perhaps eventually. Until then, we are "free" to believe what we want to.

But from my perspective, using all the tools we have at our disposal, the case seems to weigh heavily on the side of "no guiding being(s)" being responsible.

The scientific method itself (upon which leans heavily the entire reliability of all research and reasoning conducted and accepted as rule, tenet and dogma in the modern and post-modern periods), understands that the lack of proof is in no way the disproving of any hypothesis held up to questioning.

In adhering to the scientific method of questioning and probing the world around us, subject to them actually being disproved and negated concretely, all hypotheses are assumed to be, by default, true.

If at this stage of our development as a civilisation, you acknowledge that we cannot fully know the Divine, then surely 'all the tools we have at our disposal' which you speak of in the very next line are also in themselves insufficient at this moment to provide in any way scientifically acceptable evidence for the existence of God.

How then can this your proof be admitted in order to lend weight to the negative side of the case of Divine existence?

 

[BugsyB]

I would ask them who put the bop in the bop sha bop and the lam in the rama lama ding dong.

hahaha...love that swift here is answere: "Who Put the Bomp (in the Bomp, Bomp, Bomp)" is a Doo-wop style hit song from 1961 co-written (with Gerry Goffin) and recorded by Barry Mann. He was backed up by The Halos[1], who had previously backed up Curtis Lee on the song "Pretty Little Angel Eyes".

lam in the rama lama ding dong: was the edsels

maybe you and X can get together, he a doowop boi too lol

 

[XMan101]

I would ask them who put the bop in the bop sha bop and the lam in the rama lama ding dong.

Yep! The most sensible question in this thread

Actually, one of them was Frankie Lymon - he recorded an answer song in around 1961 (after his voice had broken) called "I put the bomp".

So now you know

 

[BugsyB]

hahahaha, somehow i knew you would X thanks babe...lol

 

[BugsyB]

bye the way....love your new avatar

 

[XMan101]

bye the way....love your new avatar

I took the photo too (in Berlin) It's all my own work!

 

[ggold]

How then can this your proof be admitted in order to lend weight to the negative side of the case of Divine existence?

You seem to have a characteristic present in many today. That of extrapolation when you want to make a point.

I don't see "proof" in my statement anywhere. In fact, it seems to lean very much toward the openness of the question. So I have no choice but to agree with you in principle.

However, as it is a personal perspective for all of us, I will stay where I am on the point. But in the end, I don't see that it makes much of a practical difference, especially if you remove the man made trappings of religion. That is where the real distaste lies.

 

[whatthef__k]

I actually never understood why there is such a huge interest in answering the question of the existence of any god.
Personally, I think most people are not religious because they do believe in the existence of a god, but because they identify with underlying elementary maxims concerned with human social interaction.

Additionally, there is an enormous variaty in the degree to which people do actually believe in or follow religious principles on a cognitive, affective or behavioral basis. Equally, people who regard themselves as non-religious do not necessarily refuse a religion's beliefs.
To my mind, therefore the dichotomy between believers and non-believers is quite artificial as there are much more overlapping parts than we may notice initially.

Just a sample, it is proofen, by medical studies, that being gay is already a fact in the mothers body, because of a lack of enzymes.
Means clear it is given by the Lord! So it also means, it can't be evil.

I'd love to see those studies as I highly doubt that...

 

[Mamah]

I thought you made some good points there, whatthef_k. Also, the question of God's existence or not can hardly be sensibly discussed without a preliminary discussion and, if possible, agreement, about what we mean by the term God.
Also not all religions have a creator being (God) - Buddhism and Taoism, for example, do not. In those cases the term religion refers to a set of moral principles, shared by others, based on reflective thought, amongst several other characteristics of what we call religion. So on a world-wide & historical scale, to be religious doesn't necessarily require belief in a creator god.