Archbishop of Canterbury doubts the presence of God!

[TimberCutterDartmoor]

never in 2000 years produced any supporting evidence

 

Really?!!! Cracks me up that people think this; it's simply not true.

[the village idiot]

Really?!!! Cracks me up that people think this; it's simply not true.

 

Over to you TCD.

 

Despite my strong views on the subject I am not a closed minded person. If you can provide compelling and verifiable evidence that your God exists I will gladly admit that my position is untenable.

 

My position is probably best summed up by this quote from Stephen F. Roberts.

 

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

[Stubby]

On the edge of my seat here ..... Open minded but I need proof .

[TimberCutterDartmoor]

For clarification, I meant JC who claimed to be God...

 

Only tweets tonight re this, I'm too busy.

[Haironyourchest]

Not trolling, promise, but cannot help but shove my oar in. It seems to be the nature of religious "debate" that it makes otherwise agreeable people turn purple and steam come out of their ears. Hence all the bloodshed these last few millennia...but anyway, here goes.

 

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

 

- Jesus.

 

Seriously. He was telling a parable but he was speaking about himself.

[the village idiot]

For clarification, I meant JC who claimed to be God...

 

Only tweets tonight re this, I'm too busy.

 

Hi TCD,

 

I have no issue with the fact that there could have been a chap called Jesus Christ who lived 2000 years ago. It is perfectly plausible that he existed and was indeed crucified. What needs proving is that he was the son of God (or God himself).

 

I fully appreciate that I am am probably coming across as a pedantic prat that can't just let it drop and let people believe what they want to believe. But religion has an awful lot to answer for. It causes a lot of harm and should not be immune from having to explain itself just because it is sacred to people.

[Mull]

Hi TCD,

 

 

 

I have no issue with the fact that there could have been a chap called Jesus Christ who lived 2000 years ago. It is perfectly plausible that he existed and was indeed crucified. What needs proving is that he was the son of God (or God himself).

 

 

 

I fully appreciate that I am am probably coming across as a pedantic prat that can't just let it drop and let people believe what they want to believe. But religion has an awful lot to answer for. It causes a lot of harm and should not be immune from having to explain itself just because it is sacred to people.

 

 

It's a state of mind, no proof! That's why it's called Faith!

[Mark J]

The Dali Lama reckon's that praying for problems of mankind's own making is like trying to herd cats.

 

Dalai Lama: Humans Created Terrorism, So Stop Praying To God For A Solution

[the village idiot]

It's a state of mind, no proof! That's why it's called Faith!

 

There still has to be a justifiable reason why you have that Faith.

 

Have you heard of the Cosmic Teapot paradox?

 

If I was to out of the blue insist that there was an interplanetary teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars it couldn't be proven absolutely that I was wrong, but the weight of evidence against me being right is so strong that pretty much everyone would agree that I was mistaken. The fact that I had faith in it would not be enough to satisfy people that I should not be challenged on my belief.

It is the same situation with a belief or faith in God. The weight of evidence against there being a God is so strong that we should reasonable discount his existence.

 

If I went further and garnered support for my cosmic teapot faith and insisted that it was instructing my desciples to reject scientific reasoning and destroy any non- teapotians then pretty much everyone on the planet would start getting a bit angry with me.

 

There is nothing wrong with having Faith in something completely illogical so long as it is harmless. Religion is not, so simply having Faith in it is not good enough.

 

It is also pretty bizarre that an all powerful and intrinsically good God would choose to rely on people having Faith in him to justify his existence. Why not just pop down and say hello and instantly remove all the angst and doubt suffered by the poor Archbishop and his flock?

[Mull]

There still has to be a justifiable reason why you have that Faith.

 

 

 

Have you heard of the Cosmic Teapot paradox?

 

 

 

If I was to out of the blue insist that there was an interplanetary teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars it couldn't be proven absolutely that I was wrong, but the weight of evidence against me being right is so strong that pretty much everyone would agree that I was mistaken. The fact that I had faith in it would not be enough to satisfy people that I should not be challenged on my belief.

 

It is the same situation with a belief or faith in God. The weight of evidence against there being a God is so strong that we should reasonable discount his existence.

 

 

 

If I went further and garnered support for my cosmic teapot faith and insisted that it was instructing my desciples to reject scientific reasoning and destroy any non- teapotians then pretty much everyone on the planet would start getting a bit angry with me.

 

 

 

There is nothing wrong with having Faith in something completely illogical so long as it is harmless. Religion is not, so simply having Faith in it is not good enough.

 

 

 

It is also pretty bizarre that an all powerful and intrinsically good God would choose to rely on people having Faith in him to justify his existence. Why not just pop down and say hello and instantly remove all the angst and doubt suffered by the poor Archbishop and his flock?

 

 

As I said it's a state of mind, a choice by an individual.

P