zak Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Without wanting to get into a massive debate, I guess the difference in believing in God and believing in Harry Potter, is that billions of people believe in God. So there may be the same amount of evidence, but if you're presented with two different scenarios and someone says "there's no evidence for either but billions of people believe option A is true, but nobody believes option B is true" then you're more likely to believe option A, I would have thought. Or at least most people would. Obviously there would be exceptions. An appeal to popularity is a fallacy. It doesn't matter how many people something. Either it's true or it isn't. (That's 50/50.) Besides; which God? Pretty much every religious person believes in a different God (or gods). Most Christians don't believe in the volcano god / mountain spirit / air god /drug delusion described in the Bible they share with the other Abrahamic religions There is only one Harry Potter. Arguably more people believe in Harry Potter than in any personal definition of God. Unless you are talking about "something out there" which is deism and not religion or theism and god with a small "g". There is a difference between Harry Potter and gods etc. Harry Potter we know is not true as the writer who wrote it does not claim it as fact. Dont get me wrong i am no believer (i think its illogical) but i dont think that is a great comparison. Although 99.9% sure the things in the bible did not happen, we can not be certain. We can be certain Harry Potter didnt (something in the books) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. That doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny does it? Good people have never done evil due to betrayal, or love, or lust, or economics, politics, flags, land, oil, or mental illness, or lies, or booze, or drugs or any one of another million reasons? Or perhaps you think that anyone that acts out of character out of desperation was evil all along, just biding their time? Come on, there are stronger arguments than that against 'god'. I am not arguing against a God . I am just pointing out that Religion can give otherwise sane people justification to do insane things .If you can make people believe absurdities then you can make them commit atrocities. Edited July 1, 2015 by Brumerican Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Yep, and I can agree with that point entirely. From the Stanley Milgram experiment, to Cambodia's year zero, salem witch hunts, nazism, catholic inquisitions right up to today's latest gruesome incarnation some how 'ordinary' people can be persuaded to be monsters. We are an odd bunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Of course this isn't just an Islamic phenomenon and I am well aware that good people can do bad things because of lust,politics and greed etc but this thread is about religiously inspired acts of violence. Edited July 1, 2015 by Brumerican Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 1, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 1, 2015 There is a difference between Harry Potter and gods etc. Harry Potter we know is not true as the writer who wrote it does not claim it as fact. Dont get me wrong i am no believer (i think its illogical) but i dont think that is a great comparison. Although 99.9% sure the things in the bible did not happen, we can not be certain. We can be certain Harry Potter didnt (something in the books) I don't understand your point at all. Someone wrote Harry Potter (one person, several editors). People wrote the Bible (many authors, many editors, many translators). What's the difference? One of them has flying broomsticks, the other has a seven headed dragon, both have witches. There are facts in both. They are both books of stories. written by people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 There is a difference between Harry Potter and gods etc. Harry Potter we know is not true as the writer who wrote it does not claim it as fact. Dont get me wrong i am no believer (i think its illogical) but i dont think that is a great comparison. Although 99.9% sure the things in the bible did not happen, we can not be certain. We can be certain Harry Potter didnt (something in the books) I don't understand your point at all. Someone wrote Harry Potter (one person, several editors). People wrote the Bible (many authors, many editors, many translators). What's the difference? One of them has flying broomsticks, the other has a seven headed dragon, both have witches. There are facts in both. They are both books of stories. written by people. Yep! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 There is a difference between Harry Potter and gods etc. Harry Potter we know is not true as the writer who wrote it does not claim it as fact. Dont get me wrong i am no believer (i think its illogical) but i dont think that is a great comparison. Although 99.9% sure the things in the bible did not happen, we can not be certain. We can be certain Harry Potter didnt (something in the books) I don't understand your point at all. Someone wrote Harry Potter (one person, several editors). People wrote the Bible (many authors, many editors, many translators). What's the difference? One of them has flying broomsticks, the other has a seven headed dragon, both have witches. There are facts in both. They are both books of stories. written by people. But the bible is based on publicaians from many 1000s years ago. none of us know what is true and what isnt. Harry Potter is a made up story (a tale if you like) based on fantasy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 1, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 1, 2015 But the bible is based on publicaians from many 1000s years ago. none of us know what is true and what isnt. Harry Potter is a made up story (a tale if you like) based on fantasy Why does the age of the original ideas matter? There 's barely an original idea in the Bible until the new testament. Almost every story is a corruption of earlier religious and non-religious stories. I don't understand your point. It's not different because it's older. Both books are based on fact with fantasy elements. Only one of them is full of contradictions caused by the massive number of writers, editors and translators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zak Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 There is a difference between Harry Potter and gods etc. Harry Potter we know is not true as the writer who wrote it does not claim it as fact. Dont get me wrong i am no believer (i think its illogical) but i dont think that is a great comparison. Although 99.9% sure the things in the bible did not happen, we can not be certain. We can be certain Harry Potter didnt (something in the books) I don't understand your point at all. Someone wrote Harry Potter (one person, several editors). People wrote the Bible (many authors, many editors, many translators). What's the difference? One of them has flying broomsticks, the other has a seven headed dragon, both have witches. There are facts in both. They are both books of stories. written by people. But the bible is based on publicaians from many 1000s years ago. none of us know what is true and what isnt. Harry Potter is a made up story (a tale if you like) based on fantasy Exactly, we know the stories in Harry potter are fiction because the author has said they are such. We do not know if the stories like Jesus rose from the dead are true or not, you and I presume they are and would be near certain, but the authors etc havnt said they were not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted July 1, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 1, 2015 We have a religion thread for this stuff. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 1, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 1, 2015 There is a difference between Harry Potter and gods etc. Harry Potter we know is not true as the writer who wrote it does not claim it as fact. Dont get me wrong i am no believer (i think its illogical) but i dont think that is a great comparison. Although 99.9% sure the things in the bible did not happen, we can not be certain. We can be certain Harry Potter didnt (something in the books) I don't understand your point at all. Someone wrote Harry Potter (one person, several editors). People wrote the Bible (many authors, many editors, many translators). What's the difference? One of them has flying broomsticks, the other has a seven headed dragon, both have witches. There are facts in both. They are both books of stories. written by people. But the bible is based on publicaians from many 1000s years ago. none of us know what is true and what isnt. Harry Potter is a made up story (a tale if you like) based on fantasy Exactly, we know the stories in Harry potter are fiction because the author has said they are such. We do not know if the stories like Jesus rose from the dead are true or not, you and I presume they are and would be near certain, but the authors etc havnt said they were not. Do you know there were lots of other writers around at the time? Even the gospels are contradictory about Jesus rising from the dead. There isn't a single contemporary report about zombies in the streets of Jerusalem as reported by Matthew. Even though we know how much each Roman soldier was being paid and fed, no-one thought to mention many dead saints walking about a bit. Both books are fiction in historical settings. There is nothing special about either. I'm pretty sure that Tolkien never stated that his works were fiction and I've no idea whether Rowling has. I don't see what difference that makes to the discussion either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pembers Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) There is a difference between Harry Potter and gods etc. Harry Potter we know is not true as the writer who wrote it does not claim it as fact. Dont get me wrong i am no believer (i think its illogical) but i dont think that is a great comparison. Although 99.9% sure the things in the bible did not happen, we can not be certain. We can be certain Harry Potter didnt (something in the books) I don't understand your point at all. Someone wrote Harry Potter (one person, several editors). People wrote the Bible (many authors, many editors, many translators). What's the difference? One of them has flying broomsticks, the other has a seven headed dragon, both have witches. There are facts in both. They are both books of stories. written by people. But the bible is based on publicaians from many 1000s years ago. none of us know what is true and what isnt. Harry Potter is a made up story (a tale if you like) based on fantasy Exactly, we know the stories in Harry potter are fiction because the author has said they are such. We do not know if the stories like Jesus rose from the dead are true or not, you and I presume they are and would be near certain, but the authors etc havnt said they were not. Believing the events of the bible are true because they are written down is no different to believing the events of Harry Potter are true because they are written down. If a person in the future found copies of the 2 books how would they know the difference between them? Neither are stated in the books to be works of fact or fiction. Edited July 1, 2015 by Pembers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Brumerican Posted July 1, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted July 1, 2015 I imagine future humans would read a Potter novel and declare it as preposterous. Especially when they get to the bit where a ginger kid has 2 friends. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 There is a difference between Harry Potter and gods etc. Harry Potter we know is not true as the writer who wrote it does not claim it as fact. Dont get me wrong i am no believer (i think its illogical) but i dont think that is a great comparison. Although 99.9% sure the things in the bible did not happen, we can not be certain. We can be certain Harry Potter didnt (something in the books) I don't understand your point at all. Someone wrote Harry Potter (one person, several editors). People wrote the Bible (many authors, many editors, many translators). What's the difference? One of them has flying broomsticks, the other has a seven headed dragon, both have witches. There are facts in both. They are both books of stories. written by people. But the bible is based on publicaians from many 1000s years ago. none of us know what is true and what isnt. Harry Potter is a made up story (a tale if you like) based on fantasy Exactly, we know the stories in Harry potter are fiction because the author has said they are such. We do not know if the stories like Jesus rose from the dead are true or not, you and I presume they are and would be near certain, but the authors etc havnt said they were not. Do you know there were lots of other writers around at the time? Even the gospels are contradictory about Jesus rising from the dead. There isn't a single contemporary report about zombies in the streets of Jerusalem as reported by Matthew. Even though we know how much each Roman soldier was being paid and fed, no-one thought to mention many dead saints walking about a bit. Both books are fiction in historical settings. There is nothing special about either. I'm pretty sure that Tolkien never stated that his works were fiction and I've no idea whether Rowling has. I don't see what difference that makes to the discussion either way. But thats your belief that it is fiction, not a fact. Many people believe in the bible until its proven its not true and "fantasy" Harry Potter we know for a fact is a tale and completely not true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 10 black churches burned since the Charleston massacre. Nobody here calls it "terrorism" though, including the shooting itself, even though it fits the description perfectly. The media have shaped us to think of only Muslims when we talk about "terrorism". 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 There is a difference between Harry Potter and gods etc. Harry Potter we know is not true as the writer who wrote it does not claim it as fact. Dont get me wrong i am no believer (i think its illogical) but i dont think that is a great comparison. Although 99.9% sure the things in the bible did not happen, we can not be certain. We can be certain Harry Potter didnt (something in the books) I don't understand your point at all. Someone wrote Harry Potter (one person, several editors). People wrote the Bible (many authors, many editors, many translators). What's the difference? One of them has flying broomsticks, the other has a seven headed dragon, both have witches. There are facts in both. They are both books of stories. written by people. But the bible is based on publicaians from many 1000s years ago. none of us know what is true and what isnt. Harry Potter is a made up story (a tale if you like) based on fantasy Exactly, we know the stories in Harry potter are fiction because the author has said they are such. We do not know if the stories like Jesus rose from the dead are true or not, you and I presume they are and would be near certain, but the authors etc havnt said they were not. Do you know there were lots of other writers around at the time? Even the gospels are contradictory about Jesus rising from the dead. There isn't a single contemporary report about zombies in the streets of Jerusalem as reported by Matthew. Even though we know how much each Roman soldier was being paid and fed, no-one thought to mention many dead saints walking about a bit. Both books are fiction in historical settings. There is nothing special about either. I'm pretty sure that Tolkien never stated that his works were fiction and I've no idea whether Rowling has. I don't see what difference that makes to the discussion either way. But thats your belief that it is fiction, not a fact. Many people believe in the bible until its proven its not true and "fantasy" Harry Potter we know for a fact is a tale and completely not true "I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!" J.K. Rowling 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 1, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 1, 2015 But thats your belief that it is fiction, not a fact. Many people believe in the bible until its proven its not true and "fantasy" Harry Potter we know for a fact is a tale and completely not true How would I prove that something impossible didn't happen? Zombie saints did not walk around Jerusalem. Prove to me there isn't a platform 9 3/4 at King's Cross station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 You absolute vile sc-um What a horrible creature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 ive got no problem with religious people and if they want to live side by side with god thats fine but its the nutters that use it as an excuse for violence,sexual abuse etc that are the problem. people who are religious get put down for believing in god and other religious figures and i think thats wrong because whos right is it to diss what they believe in if they are practicing their religion in peace. im not religious at all although i have prayed before so that in itself can signify that deep down i believe in a higher power but would the world be better without religion? i dont think its a complete yes but i think it would do away with a lot of violence. People only follow religions because they've been indoctrinated as children. Why is believing in the God of the Bible and different than believing in Harry Potter, the tooth fairy or the Loch Ness monster? They all have the same amount of evidence. Some people believe in them because we encourage children to accept things they are told without evidence. There's a reason religions are so desperate to run the schools. If they don't, religion will disappear altogether in a few generations. I hope it will anyway as access to the facts is so much easier. The time is well overdue to remove their tax breaks and stop our taxes being given to them to try and indoctrinate future generations. not really, people can start being religious at any point in their life whether it be they are intrigued or they had a life changing experience and it pushed them towards god. i agree its about time it died out but its not all bad and the point i was making was i think some people get looked down on for being religious. i myself might come across that ive got a problem with muslims but if ilived next door to a muslim and he was very religious but practised his religion with peace then it would not bother me one bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Here's a thought I've been pondering today; what about all those people who are "saved" from a life of crime by religion? Those that only don't do "bad things" because they believe they might burn for all eternity in a literal hell hole? Does religion save more lives than it destroys? great point! people who have lived a life of crime and drugs find religion and it basically saves their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts