View Full Version : Religious Beliefs
grimreaperofsouls
07-09-2006, 16:05
I'm Christian - Other.
Sokar Rostau
07-09-2006, 16:10
"I am a militant Agnostic. If you don't believe what I believe I will come and burn a ****ing question mark into your front lawn."
thegiantturtle
07-09-2006, 16:12
I'm Christian - Other and proud of it!:thumbsup:What is there to be proud of in religious beliefs?
grimreaperofsouls
07-09-2006, 16:18
What is there to be proud of in religious beliefs?
why should you not be proud in your religion?
you have a good point though, if you declare that your proud of being in a religion your also kind of saying that other religions aren't as good as yours and they should conform to your beliefs.
MinasMorgul
07-09-2006, 16:21
"Must be careful here, very dangerous ground this thread can be..."
I am not an atheist because i refuse to discount the possibility that there may be something more. but I can't blindly believe in something...Im on the fence...
sooo...BLAH!
Other i guess...
Im christian - other. Lutheran to be exact.
MadMachine
07-09-2006, 16:29
Jedi.
*starts making lightsaber sounds while swinging around his Maglite*
EDIT: Hinduist?! :laugh:
I am not an atheist because i refuse to discount the possibility that there may be something more. but I can't blindly believe in something...Im on the fence...
So you're agnostic.
MinasMorgul
07-09-2006, 16:33
So you're agnostic.
after checking the definition on Wiki, I guess I am.
you know it might have been worth while to read the Atheist/Agnostic thread...
PlagueBearer
07-09-2006, 16:35
Really, not enough options here. I mean, you left out "Jewish" for crissake!
I might have taken a "pagan" option were it available. I'm best described as an agnostic, but I'm sure that (a) there is an intelligent design to the world and (b) there are multiple intelligences responsible.
thegiantturtle
07-09-2006, 16:36
"Must be careful here, very dangerous ground this thread can be..."
I am not an atheist because i refuse to discount the possibility that there may be something more. but I can't blindly believe in something...Im on the fence...You've just described yourself as an atheist. You don't believe in gods. Whether or not you believe there are no gods is irrelevant.
why should you not be proud in your religion?I hate that comeback in that situation. What happened to neutrality?
you have a good point though, if you declare that your proud of being in a religion your also kind of saying that other religions aren't as good as yours and they should conform to your beliefs.Ah. You think being part of a specific religion makes you good. That's what I was asking for.
Does that implication extend to people who are proud of their cultural heritage?
SaroDarksbane
07-09-2006, 16:38
The short answer is that I am a "Christian - Other".
The long answer is that I think organized religions, like political parties, are total crap and serve only as a method to allow people to stop challenging their beliefs and sink into the intellectually stagnant safety of only hanging around people who agree with them.
you know it might have been worth while to read the Atheist/Agnostic thread...
I aim to please! :laugh:
MadMachine
07-09-2006, 16:44
The long answer is that I think organized religions, like political parties, are total crap and serve only as a method to allow people to stop challenging their beliefs and sink into the intellectually stagnant safety of only hanging around people who agree with them.
I agree with that, and add - as a way of keeping social order.
@Plague Bearer: Pagan? So what night do you nail the goat to your doorway and drink its still-warm blood?
MinasMorgul
07-09-2006, 16:46
You've just described yourself as an atheist. You don't believe in gods. Whether or not your believe there are no gods is irrelevant.
Blah!!!!
Ten characters
SaroDarksbane
07-09-2006, 16:49
I agree with that, and add - as a way of keeping social order.
Sometimes, maybe, but not all the time.
People are just naturally intellectually lazy. Even without some mastermind scheming to control the populace, people will, out of habit, seek out a "comfort" zone, which usually means making up your mind once, and then only hanging out with people who agree from that point on.
thegiantturtle
07-09-2006, 16:49
The long answer is that I think organized religions, like political parties, are total crap and serve only as a method to allow people to stop challenging their beliefs and sink into the intellectually stagnant safety of only hanging around people who agree with them.I think you're slightly underselling religion. Religions have a couple purposes:
1) make people feel safe
2) make people do things that are good for themselves
3) make people do things that are good for society
4) make people do things that are good for the proprietors of the religion
Different religions have different amounts of each ingredient, but most mainstream religions have some of each.
For a self actualized individual, religion can only be a danger. If you know what's right and wrong, purposes 2 and 3 above aren't necessary. What's left? Saro's covered purpose 1 pretty well, but I think I can add that this unnatural natural tendency towards homogeneity is the most dangerous thing in society. Purpose 4 should make even die hard religious fanatics think a little bit.
SaroDarksbane
07-09-2006, 16:54
I think you're slightly underselling religion. Religions have a couple purposes:
1) make people feel safe
2) make people do things that are good for themselves
3) make people do things that are good for society
4) make people do things that are good for the proprietors of the religion
Different religions have different amounts of each ingredient, but most mainstream religions have some of each.
For a self actualized individual, religion can only be a danger. If you know what's right and wrong, purposes 2 and 3 above aren't necessary. What's left?
Please don't confuse my use of "organized religion" with "religion".
Religion is great. The concept of "denominations", and having an established, unquestionable church doctrine is ludicrous.
PlagueBearer
07-09-2006, 16:58
I agree with that, and add - as a way of keeping social order.
@Plague Bearer: Pagan? So what night do you nail the goat to your doorway and drink its still-warm blood?
Well sure, but none of us are that observant. It's mostly an Easter and Christmas thing.
MadMachine
07-09-2006, 17:01
Sometimes, maybe, but not all the time.
People are just naturally intellectually lazy. Even without some mastermind scheming to control the populace, people will, out of habit, seek out a "comfort" zone, which usually means making up your mind once, and then only hanging out with people who agree from that point on.
Shintoism.
thegiantturtle
07-09-2006, 17:02
Please don't confuse my use of "organized religion" with "religion".
Religion is great. The concept of "denominations", and having an established, unquestionable church doctrine is ludicrous.Sorry I editted my post after you responded.
By default I assume Religion to be the organized religions, and I agree completely on your view of unquestionable church doctrine in this day and age. I do see think that it served some positive purposes in hisotry.
As for personal religious beliefs, they can be said to have the same 4 tenets as organized religions, just the proprietor of the religion is also the believer in the religion, so 2 and 4 are the same thing. In any case, I see personal religion as just a crutch used to hold up personal moral codes. If you need it, ok, but I don't know why people go through the trouble.
grimreaperofsouls
07-09-2006, 17:07
Really, not enough options here. I mean, you left out "Jewish" for crissake!
I might have taken a "pagan" option were it available. I'm best described as an agnostic, but I'm sure that (a) there is an intelligent design to the world and (b) there are multiple intelligences responsible.dangit i knew i let out 1... neways any religion not on the poll goes under other so.... sorry to all for not putting jewish
@MadMachine - Hinduist = Hinduism
SaroDarksbane
07-09-2006, 17:14
By default I assume Religion to be the organized religions
I've belonged to a few churches over the course of my childhood, and every one was in the format of:
1. Come in.
2. Sit down.
3. Listen to a preacher dictate what the Bible says about a specific topic.
4. Leave.
If I were to join a church, it would be a church like this:
1. Come in.
2. Sit down.
3. Raise an issue, especially if it's a hot topic currently (Abortion, Homosexuality, etc.)
4. Participate in a heated debate about Biblical interpretations related to the issue.
5. Leave feeling more enlightened than when I left.
grimreaperofsouls
07-09-2006, 17:18
I've belonged to a few churches over the course of my childhood, and every one was in the format of:
1. Come in.
2. Sit down.
3. Listen to a preacher dictate what the Bible says about a specific topic.
4. Leave.
If I were to join a church, it would be a church like this:
1. Come in.
2. Sit down.
3. Raise an issue, especially if it's a hot topic currently (Abortion, Homosexuality, etc.)
4. Participate in a heated debate about Biblical interpretations related to the issue.
5. Leave feeling more enlightened than when I left.Saro thats a great idea for a new church ya know? if you ever start that church you will see me in your everyday.
thegiantturtle
07-09-2006, 17:20
If I were to join a church, it would be a church like this:
1. Come in.
2. Sit down.
3. Raise an issue, especially if it's a hot topic currently (Abortion, Homosexuality, etc.)
4. Participate in a heated debate about Biblical interpretations related to the issue.
5. Leave feeling more enlightened than when I left.And I think desiring to base your discussion on the bible is an unnecessary and ludicrous crutch. Why not the following?
1. Come in.
2. Sit down.
3. Raise an issue, especially if it's a hot topic currently (Abortion, Homosexuality, etc.)
4. Participate in a heated debate about the issue using resources that are relevant
5. Leave feeling more enlightened, and less like you just based your opinions on a mythological text.
I find that to be a much more productive use of the time. Too bad it's now not a religion.
bladesyz
07-09-2006, 17:27
why should you not be proud in your religion?
you have a good point though, if you declare that your proud of being in a religion your also kind of saying that other religions aren't as good as yours and they should conform to your beliefs.
There's nothing wrong with taking pride in oneself, including religion, culture, heritage. It's who you are, so why shouldn't you be proud?
Being proud of something doesn't at all mean all other things are inferior. Taking pride in one's work, for example, does not mean one is dismissing the work of all other people.
SaroDarksbane
07-09-2006, 17:28
And I think desiring to base your discussion on the bible is an unnecessary and ludicrous crutch.
Well, it's a religious debate, so the text the religion is based on seems an appropriate foundation. If I wanted to do as you suggest, I'd just post about it here. =P
Leave feeling more enlightened, and less like you just based your opinions on a mythological text.
It may be that after debating with other Christians for a while, I find a deeper connection to the Bible. It may be that I come to realize the Bible is completely non-sensical and self-contradictory. Either way, the knowledge is useful, yes?
bladesyz
07-09-2006, 17:30
I am not an atheist because i refuse to discount the possibility that there may be something more. but I can't blindly believe in something...Im on the fence...
I am an Atheist, but I do not discount the existence of spirituality. I simply discount the existence of supreme beings who are the end authority on all things moral.
thegiantturtle
07-09-2006, 17:46
Well, it's a religious debate, so the text the religion is based on seems an appropriate foundation. If I wanted to do as you suggest, I'd just post about it here. =PMy whole point was, why would doing it in a fundamentalist christian religous setting be any better than doing it in a secular setting?
It may be that after debating with other Christians for a while, I find a deeper connection to the Bible. It may be that I come to realize the Bible is completely non-sensical and self-contradictory. Either way, the knowledge is useful, yes?No. Why is a deep connection to the Bible a good thing? All I see there is a crutch to use to rationalize one's beliefs or take on new beliefs without thinking properly.
grimreaperofsouls
07-09-2006, 17:53
Turtle why don't you discredit other religions like Hinduism or Islam? Are you discrediting Christianity because it is more prominent throughout the world or because it has played such a fundamental part in the formation of this country we know as the United States of America. Before you start to discredit just one religion you also look at others who follow some of the same designs as Christiantity like Isla. The have their own form of the bible, The Koran, and th have their own messiah and they have Allah/God as well.
SaroDarksbane
07-09-2006, 17:59
No. Why is a deep connection to the Bible a good thing? All I see there is a crutch to use to rationalize one's beliefs or take on new beliefs without thinking properly.
I am a Christian. I subscribe to the general principles of Christianity. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus, whose words are recorded in the Bible.
PatMaGroin
07-09-2006, 18:02
I've belonged to a few churches over the course of my childhood, and every one was in the format of:
1. Come in.
2. Sit down.
3. Listen to a preacher dictate what the Bible says about a specific topic.
4. Leave.
If I were to join a church, it would be a church like this:
1. Come in.
2. Sit down.
3. Raise an issue, especially if it's a hot topic currently (Abortion, Homosexuality, etc.)
4. Participate in a heated debate about Biblical interpretations related to the issue.
5. Leave feeling more enlightened than when I left.
I've had a few Sunday school classes like that, they were great until the teachers went on to other things in the church.
And I think desiring to base your discussion on the bible is an unnecessary and ludicrous crutch. Why not the following?
We get it, you're not a fan of Christianity. No matter how many times you say the word 'crutch' you're not going to convince anyone. We picked up on your feelings the first time you said it.
You're as unlikely to convert us as we are you. So just chill with it.
Star Dust
07-09-2006, 18:06
I'm an agnostic atheist, for the most part. I might have voted aethiest, (http://mwillett.org/athiest.htm) but I'm not sure what that it.
"I am a militant Agnostic. If you don't believe what I believe I will come and burn a ****ing question mark into your front lawn."
I like the militant atheism (http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/383/manr4.jpg) one better.
You've just described yourself as an atheist. You don't believe in gods. Whether or not you believe there are no gods is irrelevant.
To clarify, theists + atheists = all of humanity. Or atheist :: ~theist.
grimreaperofsouls
07-09-2006, 18:12
There is an athiest who is walking out in the woods thinking evolution caused all of the beauty of the forest. Well along comes this 7 foot tall grizzley bear. Th e athiest turned around and saw the grizzly and screamed a bloodcurdling scream anruns up the hill. Then the grizzly starts chasing and closing in on him. Well just as the bear got ready to kill him he screamed save me God! Time stopped and a bright light shown in the sky and god said why should I save you after all these years of you teaching others I'm not real? The athiest replied, Lord it would be a hypocrocy to ask to be a christian now but could you at least make the bear christian? The Lord said O.K. Time started again and the bear took its paw away and put both together and said"Lord thank you for this food I am about to recieve Amen.
bladesyz
07-09-2006, 18:27
There is an athiest who is walking out in the woods thinking evolution caused all of the beauty of the forest. Well along comes this 7 foot tall grizzley bear. Th e athiest turned around and saw the grizzly and screamed a bloodcurdling scream anruns up the hill. Then the grizzly starts chasing and closing in on him. Well just as the bear got ready to kill him he screamed save me God! Time stopped and a bright light shown in the sky and god said why should I save you after all these years of you teaching others I'm not real? The athiest replied, Lord it would be a hypocrocy to ask to be a christian now but could you at least make the bear christian? The Lord said O.K. Time started again and the bear took its paw away and put both together and said"Lord thank you for this food I am about to recieve Amen.
If God was omnibenevolent, why would he be so petty as to require mortal worship before intervening to save a life?
grimreaperofsouls
07-09-2006, 18:28
its a joke...
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
07-09-2006, 18:39
Grim, there's a special place in hell for users of fonts like that. It's slightly in front of and off to the left of the one reserved for those that link to tubgirl and/or goatse.
I believe in one god. My church is everywhere. I ask of him for little and he asks me of little. It works well.
Talga Vasternich
07-09-2006, 18:39
If God was omnibenevolent, why would he be so petty as to require mortal worship before intervening to save a life?
Maybe he's lonely :sad2:
Module88
07-09-2006, 18:56
Raised as a Catholic, but believe in the Baha'i (http://www.bahai.org/) faith. :shocked:
thegiantturtle
07-09-2006, 19:03
We get it, you're not a fan of Christianity. No matter how many times you say the word 'crutch' you're not going to convince anyone. We picked up on your feelings the first time you said it.
You're as unlikely to convert us as we are you. So just chill with it.I wasn't attempting to convert. I was attempting to find out what the reasoning was behind the belief that was put forth. Maybe it would be interesting. I'm trying to be open minded on the issue. Instead of saying "stop it", you could say, "I don't feel that the bible is a crutch and this is why." I could then respond with my reasons for it being a crutch and we could talk about the social and emotional impact the Bible has. Instead of your intended effect (to shut me off), all I got out of your post is that you're scared to think about the possibilities. That's reinforcement of my unnatural homogeneity comment.
I am a Christian. I subscribe to the general principles of Christianity. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus, whose words are recorded in the Bible.And again, my question is why would you want to put yourself in an environment where your discussion of something is going to be based directly on the bible? You say you subscribe to the general principles. You don't need a bible to talk about those at all. Love thy neighbor, obey the law, turn the other cheek, help those in need, and generally be nice. It sounds like you're subscribing to the book as an infallible truth. That's fundamental christianity, which tends not to follow the general principles of christianity at all.
EDIT:
To clarify, theists + atheists = all of humanity. Or atheist :: ~theist.Atheists + Theists = everyone. Theists believe in god(s). Atheists don't believe in gods. People that believe that no gods exist are a subset of Atheists. You can leave open the possibility of gods without actually believing in gods.
Christian - Other.
I'm scared where this thread could go...
MadMachine
07-09-2006, 19:40
Christian - Other.
I'm scared where this thread could go...
It's relatively tame so far, but I expect it could get a lot worse.
It's relatively tame so far, but I expect it could get a lot worse.
We just have to wait until the right people log in... when the sun rises on other parts of the world...
Road Ratt
07-09-2006, 19:45
I don't believe in any of the BS labels therefor... I'm Other.
I don't believe in any of the BS labels therefor... I'm Other.
Well, other than not believing in labels, what do you believe?
grimreaperofsouls
07-09-2006, 20:23
Hey, could in the future there not be any HUGE arguments? some argumets help us understand better but flame wars and belittling people will probally get you banned and get this thread closed. So for the sake of others, no flame wars or big-time arguments
Religion is an individual matter.
It's all the same, just with different names and different details but the general idea of all religions is much the same. And people give it different names, fitting with their ideas, their cultural heritage of fitting to the person they are or want to be.
I'm not much of a christian but since I use terms like god I suppose I fall into that category, while having my own idea about it. I don't fit in any church community, as it leaves very little room for individual believes.
I strongly believe that god (I call him god, feel free to give him another name suiting with who you are) comes to you in the way you need him. I also strongly believe that while my religion and how I perceive it works great for me, it wouldn't do anyone else much good since that other person is not me.
I believe I'm right about my religion, and that you are right about yours, and that neither is better than the other.
...adding to that that while I respect all religions I cannot tolerate one that has the goal of influencing others, not respecting the individual, or just plainly harming someone because he believes something else.
Omikron8
07-09-2006, 20:44
i do believe in some general spiritual meaning to the universe, whether that means some entity or some realm of existence outside our physical bodies
just not in the whole screwed up form of organized religion with its wonderful practices of discrimination, guilt trips, etc.
which means i'm not interested in christianity, islam, buddhism, judaism, hinduism, etc.
Road Ratt
07-09-2006, 21:23
Well, other than not believing in labels, what do you believe?
I believe I like this song:
XTC - "Dear God"
, hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
but all the people that you made in your image, see
them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you
Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
and all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
in the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
I can't believe in you
Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
mankind after we made you? And the devil too!
, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
a lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
so do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in
I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
and if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
my sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in
it's you.... Dear God
...adding to that that while I respect all religions I cannot tolerate one that has the goal of influencing others, not respecting the individual, or just plainly harming someone because he believes something else.
I would agree with you on the last two propositions, but I can't say I agree on the first.
I would never be against persuasion, as long as it does not become coersion. I'm not sure how you can make an argument that persuading or influencing others is unacceptable, but I would really like to hear your opinion. Could you elaborate?
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
07-09-2006, 22:22
I'm scared where this thread could go...
It's not so bad here in the handbasket. Now where were we going?
CandidusMortis
07-09-2006, 22:29
It's not so bad here in the handbasket. Now where were we going?
Got room for another? I hope there's room for expansion, there's going to be a lot of us in here.
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
07-09-2006, 22:47
If there isnt' enough room we'll just cut off a few legs and arms. It's not like you're going to be needing them where this is going
That list is woefully incomplete. Although with only ten options it was bound to be. I of course am "other".
@MadMachine - Hinduist = Hinduism
Hindu is the right form, I believe.
its a joke...
It's reasonably good.
Raised as a Catholic, but believe in the Baha'i (http://www.bahai.org/) faith. :shocked:
Nerd... :grin:
Baha'i is like when you take all the little leftover bits of soap and mash them together into one new one...
Sometimes, maybe, but not all the time.
People are just naturally intellectually lazy. Even without some mastermind scheming to control the populace, people will, out of habit, seek out a "comfort" zone, which usually means making up your mind once, and then only hanging out with people who agree from that point on.
That goes for pretty much all ideologies, not just religious ones.
Please don't confuse my use of "organized religion" with "religion".
Erm, you should also consider that "religion" specifies a certain sub-branch of spirituality. Perhaps the latter is what you are really thinking of.
I've belonged to a few churches over the course of my childhood, and every one was in the format of:
1. Come in.
2. Sit down.
3. Listen to a preacher dictate what the Bible says about a specific topic.
4. Leave.
If I were to join a church, it would be a church like this:
1. Come in.
2. Sit down.
3. Raise an issue, especially if it's a hot topic currently (Abortion, Homosexuality, etc.)
4. Participate in a heated debate about Biblical interpretations related to the issue.
5. Leave feeling more enlightened than when I left.
Then convert to Judaism...
EDIT: Hinduist?! :laugh:
Yes, I'm also pretty sure "aetheist" isn't a valid spelling (can't be 100%, it could be archaic or something).
I agree with that, and add - as a way of keeping social order.
Pfft, not for centuries.
@Plague Bearer: Pagan? So what night do you nail the goat to your doorway and drink its still-warm blood?
You're thinking of the passover, I believe...
"Pagan" is quite possibly the largest group of religions, and they're VERY highly varied.
To clarify, theists + atheists = all of humanity. Or atheist :: ~theist.
No, there are agnostics and people who haven't even thought about it.
EDIT:
Atheists + Theists = everyone. Theists believe in god(s). Atheists don't believe in gods. People that believe that no gods exist are a subset of Atheists. You can leave open the possibility of gods without actually believing in gods.
That makes no sense.
buttershug
08-09-2006, 01:45
EDIT:
Atheists + Theists = everyone. Theists believe in god(s). Atheists don't believe in gods. People that believe that no gods exist are a subset of Atheists. You can leave open the possibility of gods without actually believing in gods.
I was facinated when I first discovered that there are people who do not have the ability to be undecided. I always found it to be a handicap. and the concept that someone could be unable to not make up their mind was so bizzarre to me. But it appears that it is possible to be undecided on something is bizzarre to some people as well.
Atheists+Theists+Agnostics=everyone.
grimreaperofsouls
08-09-2006, 01:51
I can see the Pros of being Aethiest
1. You know you don't have to be morally correct all the time
2. No fear in going into Hell or whatever underworld you believe in
3. Not having to worry about an omnipitant being always hovering over your shoulder
And.......
4. Never having to worry about whether or not your "creator" is displeased in you.
Cons
1. Never having someone close to confide your deepest darkest secrets in
2. Not having someone to hold you and help you in a spiritual and mental way
3. Always knowing that when you die your gone from this world forever
PatMaGroin
08-09-2006, 02:00
I wasn't attempting to convert. I was attempting to find out what the reasoning was behind the belief that was put forth. Maybe it would be interesting. I'm trying to be open minded on the issue. Instead of saying "stop it", you could say, "I don't feel that the bible is a crutch and this is why." I could then respond with my reasons for it being a crutch and we could talk about the social and emotional impact the Bible has. Instead of your intended effect (to shut me off), all I got out of your post is that you're scared to think about the possibilities. That's reinforcement of my unnatural homogeneity comment.
You didn't come off as open minded in the least bit.
What is there to be proud of in religious beliefs?
Ah. You think being part of a specific religion makes you good. That's what I was asking for.
For a self actualized individual, religion can only be a danger.
In any case, I see personal religion as just a crutch used to hold up personal moral codes. If you need it, ok, but I don't know why people go through the trouble.
And I think desiring to base your discussion on the bible is an unnecessary and ludicrous crutch.
Why is a deep connection to the Bible a good thing? All I see there is a crutch to use to rationalize one's beliefs or take on new beliefs without thinking properly.
Calling someone's beliefs 'ludicrous' is hardly being open minded.
And seeing as that's how you feel, the odds are slim to none that anything I say will have any meaning to you at all, as you've already demonstrated with Saro, so I'll pass on the debate.
buttershug
08-09-2006, 02:01
I can see the Pros of being Aethiest
1. You know you don't have to be morally correct all the time
2. No fear in going into Hell or whatever underworld you believe in
3. Not having to worry about an omnipitant being always hovering over your shoulder
And.......
4. Never having to worry about whether or not your "creator" is displeased in you.
Cons
1. Never having someone close to confide your deepest darkest secrets in
2. Not having someone to hold you and help you in a spiritual and mental way
3. Always knowing that when you die your gone from this world forever
pro #5 can't be proven wrong.
grimreaperofsouls
08-09-2006, 02:07
pro #5 can't be proven wrong.there is no pro #5 LOL:laugh: im starting to think sumthing bout u:scratch:
MadMachine
08-09-2006, 02:09
*elbows dondrei* Jedi, Jedi!
I can see the Pros of being Aethiest
1. You know you don't have to be morally correct all the time
Catholic priests... and altar boys. 'Nuff said.
3. Not having to worry about an omnipitant being always hovering over your shoulder
That's what a wife is for.
4. Never having to worry about whether or not your "creator" is displeased in you.
Same with parents.
1. Never having someone close to confide your deepest darkest secrets in
See #3.
2. Not having someone to hold you and help you in a spiritual and mental way
See above.
3. Always knowing that when you die your gone from this world forever
Uh hunh. :rolleyes:
I'm also too lazy to correct your spelling; it's atrocious.
I can see the Pros of being Aethiest
1. You know you don't have to be morally correct all the time
2. No fear in going into Hell or whatever underworld you believe in
3. Not having to worry about an omnipitant being always hovering over your shoulder
And.......
4. Never having to worry about whether or not your "creator" is displeased in you.
Well, a wise man once said that virtue is its own reward (centuries before Christianity came along, I think). Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you don't believe in morality or ethics. Not even if you're a relativist (and an atheist isn't necessarily a moral relativist).
Cons
1. Never having someone close to confide your deepest darkest secrets in
2. Not having someone to hold you and help you in a spiritual and mental way
3. Always knowing that when you die your gone from this world forever
Well, not all theists believe in those things. And I think most atheists believe you're gone from this world forever too (except those that believe in reincarnation anyway).
*elbows dondrei* Jedi, Jedi!
Go bugger up your own census.
WildBerry
08-09-2006, 03:42
Cons
1. Never having someone close to confide your deepest darkest secrets in
2. Not having someone to hold you and help you in a spiritual and mental way
3. Always knowing that when you die your gone from this world forever
Furthermore based on the pop culture references it seems the atheists have no one to talk to when they come. :laugh:
SaroDarksbane
08-09-2006, 03:49
Tombstone Inscription: "Here lies an atheist. All dressed up, and nowhere to go."
Stoutwood
08-09-2006, 03:49
Grim, there's a special place in hell for users of fonts like that. It's slightly in front of and off to the left of the one reserved for those that link to tubgirl and/or goatse.
Crap. At least Grim can keep me company.
WildBerry
08-09-2006, 03:50
I believe I like this song:
XTC - "Dear God"
(snip)
Just thought that I'd mention it since you mentioned believing in this song.
I know there are many valid interpretations here, but read as is, the song makes absolutely no sense. "I don't believe in God or gods -> people do bad things in various god's names -> it must be the non-existent God's fault".
To the original songwriter, even he though probably isn't a resident of OTF: choose an argument and stick with it. A non-existent entity cannot be held responsible. I oftentimes enough see posts which cling on to the old adage "guns don't kill people - people do". Sorry, but if there's no God, he doubly so isn't drowning babies.
Star Dust
08-09-2006, 05:17
No, there are agnostics and people who haven't even thought about it.
Theist: one who believes in a deity
Atheist: one who lacks belief in a deity
That covers everybody.
Agnosticism and atheism or theism are not mutually exclusive. Those who haven't thought about it are atheists simply because they don't believe. Their reasons, or lack thereof, for lack of belief do not matter.
Sokar Rostau
08-09-2006, 06:12
Agnosticism and atheism or theism are not mutually exclusive. Those who haven't thought about it are atheists simply because they don't believe. Their reasons, or lack thereof, for lack of belief do not matter.
In order to be a non-believer one must first have thought about a subject in order to form an opinion. This makes them agnostic, not atheist, by default.
I always liked the designation: other.
Tombstone Inscription: "Here lies an atheist. All dressed up, and nowhere to go."
Same as a theist, except they think they're going somewhere.
Furthermore based on the pop culture references it seems the atheists have no one to talk to when they come. :laugh:
Who talks to God when they come?
Theist: one who believes in a deity
Atheist: one who lacks belief in a deity
That covers everybody.
Agnosticism and atheism or theism are not mutually exclusive. Those who haven't thought about it are atheists simply because they don't believe. Their reasons, or lack thereof, for lack of belief do not matter.
No, atheism is the opposite of theism. It means those who believe there are no gods. Agnosticism is a separate category.
Organized religion isn't bad. It exists because when some people find their own their own enlightenment or faith, they wish to share this and celebrate this with others. What good is going to heaven if nobody comes with you? :)
If you think there are ulterior motives just remember that John 3:16 comes with no strings attached.
Other than that, not everyone in organized religions believe the exact same thing. People might have different interpretations of the bible, and they study it in bible studies.
Sokar Rostau
08-09-2006, 08:29
If you think there are ulterior motives just remember that John 3:16 comes with no strings attached.
To that I say O RLY?
Perhaps you should read more than the single sentence your preachers pound into you. A good place to start is John 3:18.
EDIT: And if you think bible studies classes are anything like discussing other people's views then you have a strange concept of other views.
For the lazy:
15: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17: For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18: He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Actually, that reminds me of something I meant to post ages ago.
WildBerry
08-09-2006, 08:53
Who talks to God when they come?
"Yeah, God yeah, Ohhhhoommmmyyggooooooddaaarrgh!
Ooooooohooo my God that was great."
Well, I guess no-one really does, but I take it you haven't seen hollywoodisised sex scenes in a while, yes?
Yeah, really. What I meant to say is that the church doesnt require a certain amount of donations from you or a certain number of good deeds or anything like that.
"Yeah, God yeah, Ohhhhoommmmyyggooooooddaaarrgh!
Ooooooohooo my God that was great."
Well, I guess no-one really does, but I take it you haven't seen hollywoodisised sex scenes in a while, yes?
I use it as a general interjection. Not really the same as talking to him, unless you also talk to Mr **** and Senor ****. I doubt people think they're invoking Jupiter when they say "by Jove" either.
Eilo Rytyj
08-09-2006, 09:05
Praise be to Yevon!
I know, he was a power hungry summoner who sacrificed his people to live forever, but c'mon, he sacrificed his people to live forever!
Always keep the Fayth.
WildBerry
08-09-2006, 09:30
I use it as a general interjection. Not really the same as talking to him, unless you also talk to Mr **** and Senor ****. I doubt people think they're invoking Jupiter when they say "by Jove" either.
The exclamation dates from a time when people most certainly did so. Gotta love 'em cultural evolutional residues.
The exclamation dates from a time when people most certainly did so. Gotta love 'em cultural evolutional residues.
We have lots of cultural vestigial organs. It's quaint.
Perhaps you should read more than the single sentence your preachers pound into you.
I love how friendly this thread is becoming...:undecided:
buttershug
08-09-2006, 11:34
there is no pro #5 LOL:laugh: im starting to think sumthing bout u:scratch:
Are you saying Atheists can be proven wrong?
If so how?
Now of course #5 is true for the other two as well.
So in that sense it's not a pro exclusivly to atheists.
Well my fever is down now, not that makes much differnce to my ramblings.
buttershug
08-09-2006, 11:41
Theist: one who believes in a deity
Atheist: one who lacks belief in a deity
That covers everybody.
Agnosticism and atheism or theism are not mutually exclusive. Those who haven't thought about it are atheists simply because they don't believe. Their reasons, or lack thereof, for lack of belief do not matter.
You are inaccurate.
Where did you get that definition of Atheist?
It's Atheist: one who believes in a lack of a diety.
I never realized what a fine distintion it is.
I sincerely hope your definition never becomes the official one.
Edit:
I just realized. "Atheists don't believe in God" is a common statement.
It is an accurate statement.
It is however not a definition.
I think therein lays the confusion.
@Dondrei, it is "lays" not "lies" isn't it?
Star Dust
08-09-2006, 13:43
In order to be a non-believer one must first have thought about a subject in order to form an opinion. This makes them agnostic, not atheist, by default.
No. In order to be a non-believer one must simply not believe.
No, atheism is the opposite of theism. It means those who believe there are no gods. Agnosticism is a separate category.
You are inaccurate.
Where did you get that definition of Atheist?
It's Atheist: one who believes in a lack of a diety.
I never realized what a fine distintion it is.
I sincerely hope your definition never becomes the official one.
Do some reading. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)
Then some more. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html)
Maybe more after that. (http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm)
And if you're on a roll... (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/atheistdefine.html)
buttershug
08-09-2006, 13:58
No. In order to be a non-believer one must simply not believe.
Do some reading. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)
Then some more. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html)
Maybe more after that. (http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm)
And if you're on a roll... (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/atheistdefine.html)
Read the first carefully it's talking in the broadest sense I'm talking in strict sense.
The second is one person's opinion.
Give me a break. Apples are red. Strawberries are red but are not apples.
Ok agian it's making a true statement just not precise enough for this arguement. Atheists and Agnostics both don't believe in God.
Definition of Atheism
The Webster's New World College Dictionary (Macmillan 1996) defines atheism as "the belief that there is no God or a denial that God or gods exist." [1] In contrast it gives agnosticism as the belief "that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause." [2]
This indeed is how many non atheists understand the terms. Unfortunately, the definition of atheism given in Webster’s, and in most dictionaries, is incorrect. Most atheists do not define atheism that way. A proper understanding of the etymology of the word provides the actual meaning. As Michael Martin, Professor of Philosophy at Boston University explains:
In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god". From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of a belief in God. [3]
[Emphasis added]
So I guess you are going by the Atheist definition and I am going by the Webster's definition.
I would rather go by the Websters definition than a special interest group's.
Although I must confess I had thought it was the theists who were saying, you're either one of us or you're not.
thegiantturtle
08-09-2006, 14:04
So I guess you are going by the Atheist definition and I am going by the Webster's definition.
I would rather go by the Websters definition than a special interest group's.
Although I must confess I had thought it was the theists who were saying, you're either one of us or you're not.So you'd rather go with an inaccurate version than an accurate version. If you want to do that, then who are the people that don't believe in god and don't believe in no god? Agnostics are not sure what they believe or doubt that either belief can be known. That doesn't cover this left over set of people. What are they?
Also, if Atheists define themselves a certain way, doesn't that make it so?
And seeing as that's how you feel, the odds are slim to none that anything I say will have any meaning to you at all, as you've already demonstrated with Saro, so I'll pass on the debate.Cop out. Did you read what any of my comments were responding to or the responses I got back from them? I put down my beliefs and reasons for those beliefs. Sometimes I asked questions to see why people had alternate beliefs. Yes, I used strong language, but I didn't use it in a vacuum. I also normally did not get direct responses to my questions.
As to the ludicrous comment. I said their reliance on something was ludicrous. I did not mean that their beliefs were ludicrous. If you know what's right and wrong internally, why do you need to use a book as your reference? I did not mean to attack the general beliefs. I just meant to say that I find it much healthier to internalize the beliefs instead of relying on an outside influence. If there is a good reason to rely on said outside influence, I'd like to hear it.
I think therein lays the confusion.
@Dondrei, it is "lays" not "lies" isn't it?
Um, no it's lies. Lay is past tense.
Cannon Fodder
08-09-2006, 14:11
Organized religion isn't bad. It exists because when some people find their own their own enlightenment or faith, they wish to share this and celebrate this with others. What good is going to heaven if nobody comes with you? :)
There is a difference between faith and religion. Before I get into that though, why do you assume that only people who believe in or practice something will be eligible for the afterlife? Why can't someone be a good person and live a good life, never believing in heaven, and still go there based on the merit of who they are and not who they bowed down to?
I suppose that the argument can't be made that organized religion is bad. It would be like trying to prove that peanut butter(I can never remember if that is 1 word or 2) is bad. However, that doesn't mean that the likely or usual outcomes of it aren't bad. I'm not saying that it hasn't served a purpose in history or that it hasn't accomplished good things, but I do feel that whatever purpose or good it has accomplished can today be just as easily accomplished by secular organizations. Furthermore, I feel that the bad effects of organized religion far outweigh the good done. Basically what I'm saying is that belief is all fine and well, and faith is a very important thing for most people to have, but organized religion is unnecessary and generally cancerous.
Overall, I'm of much the same mind as Saro on this subject in terms of people being lazy and such. I can respect someone who has considered religion from an analytical and somewhat logical approach, and derived conclusions from that. It is much more difficult for me to respect someone who simply believes because they were told to as a child, or because they need the comfort, or because they are afraid. Whether someone decides to believe/practice or not, it should be a reasoned conclusion and one that they have given a lot of thought. A knee-jerk reaction in either direction seems pretty foolish to me.
If you think there are ulterior motives just remember that John 3:16 comes with no strings attached.
Other than that, not everyone in organized religions believe the exact same thing. People might have different interpretations of the bible, and they study it in bible studies.
Requiring belief seems like more of a steel cable than a string to me, so I suppose you were right in a way. I can't stomach any being who is so vain or so elitist as to exclude those whose only fault is to have been picked for the wrong team in gym class.
As for people having different interpretations- don't you see that that is exactly what religions try to destroy? Organized religion is all about standardizing belief and not giving people the chance to decide for themselves what in particular they agree with or do not. That's why there are so many versions of Christianity- whenever people tried to believe something a little different it didn't exactly go over well.
raffster
08-09-2006, 14:26
I'm Christian - Other.
I'm a born-again Catholic Zen Buddhist.
I'm a born-again Catholic Zen Buddhist.
That might be the coolest thing I've ever read :laugh:
I'm a born-again Catholic Zen Buddhist.
Which one were you born again for?
raffster
08-09-2006, 15:13
Which one were you born again for?
Sounds like a Zen question. :tongue:
I think it makes more sense to say that I was "born again" into a deeper understanding of the spiritual life and a more open-minded paradigm of spiritual beliefs.
That might be the coolest thing I've ever read :laugh:
I think most Zen dudes are cool as well.
thegiantturtle
08-09-2006, 15:45
That might be the coolest thing I've ever read :laugh:I think you need to read more.
Star Dust
08-09-2006, 17:54
Read the first carefully it's talking in the broadest sense I'm talking in strict sense.
To say atheism is the belief in no gods is incorrect because weak atheists/agnostic atheists don't belive that. When you say someone believes there is no gods you must make it clear that you are referring to a subsection of all atheists, strong atheists
Atheists and Agnostics both don't believe in God.
Wrong. There are agnostic theists, those who believe in a deity without knowing if deities exist.
I would rather go by the Websters definition than a special interest group's.
Even though this "special interest group" is atheists themselves?
Star Dust
08-09-2006, 18:01
If you think there are ulterior motives just remember that John 3:16 comes with nine strings attached.
Fixed . (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzzORZhnCao)
bladesyz
08-09-2006, 19:19
So I guess you are going by the Atheist definition and I am going by the Webster's definition.
I would rather go by the Websters definition than a special interest group's.
Although I must confess I had thought it was the theists who were saying, you're either one of us or you're not.
That is the most ridiculous thing ever. You prefer to believe some publication rather than the word from the proverbial horse's mouth itself?
What, you think Webster is infallible or something?
Sokar Rostau
08-09-2006, 19:33
Theist (to Atheist) - "I believe in the existence of a/the god/s, how could you think otherwise? It is so obvious."
Atheist (to Theist) - "I do not believe in the existence of a/the god/s, how could you think otherwise? It is so obvious."
Agnostic (to both) - "Prove it."
I would agree with you on the last two propositions, but I can't say I agree on the first.
I would never be against persuasion, as long as it does not become coersion. I'm not sure how you can make an argument that persuading or influencing others is unacceptable, but I would really like to hear your opinion. Could you elaborate?
I'll try.
I've often found that some people persist on persuade them to their belief, because they think it's the better one. But for me, it is not. It may be for them, but it is not for me. Hence the individual thing.
If your belief is strong and true, you don't feel the need to persuade others. You do speak up for what you believe in though.
In my "arguments" I state that I strongly belief in the things I believe in. It works for me. For me, it's the best way to believe. It may not be like that for you. You have your own truth, your own religion, that works just aswell for you, as mine does for me.
So: "I'm right and you are right too". That sort of thing.
Star Dust
08-09-2006, 21:47
Theist (to Atheist) - "I believe in the existence of a/the god/s, how could you think otherwise? It is so obvious."
Atheist (to Theist) - "I do not believe in the existence of a/the god/s, how could you think otherwise? It is so obvious."
Agnostic (to both) - "Prove it."
The perpetuation of the widespread and sad confusion of knowledge and belief continues...
RevenantsKnight
08-09-2006, 21:53
Theist (to Atheist) - "I believe in the existence of a/the god/s, how could you think otherwise? It is so obvious."
Atheist (to Theist) - "I do not believe in the existence of a/the god/s, how could you think otherwise? It is so obvious."
Agnostic (to both) - "Prove it."
I figure you know already, but if you're going to make that sort of statement: there are substantial numbers of theists, if not of all three categories, who do not aggressively question others' beliefs or declare that their own view is "obvious" and the only truth.
Sokar Rostau
08-09-2006, 22:56
EDIT:
Theist (to both) - "God/s exist."
Atheist (to both) - "God/s do/es not exist."
Agnostic (to both) - "Prove it."
Happy?
If you think there are ulterior motives just remember that John 3:16 comes with nine strings attached.
Fixed .
That video is just ... wow. It starts off well enough, but it makes zero sense very quickly. Not because it's claims about the bible not making sense are correct, but because they started to bring up points that 'Any normal, intelligent adult' would be able to put together, even from outside of the Christian view.
That said - I voted Atheist, though technically (by the atheist/agnostic thread) I would be an Agnostic Atheist. Sort of... I think. I neither dispute the existence of gods, nor do I claim that they do exist. They might, but I have no way of knowing. All that I do know is that if the Christian god exists, I have zero respect for him.
grimreaperofsouls
11-09-2006, 21:12
wut i dont understand is why people refuse to beieve that we were created.
it is impossible for a being this complex to happen by pure chance
so what are your theories on evolution and creationism and what not
wut i dont understand is why people refuse to beieve that we were created.
it is impossible for a being this complex to happen by pure chance
so what are your theories on evolution and creationism and what not
sort of....God*) created evolution. It's the shortest way to describe it but not the most accurate one.
*) just a name, read my previous posts.
Module88
11-09-2006, 21:19
Can anyone explain to me why evolution and creationism are separate theories in the first place? Has anyone thought about the possibility *gasp* that God created us in one way, and we evolved over time? Would that not agree with both science and religion?
Can anyone explain to me why evolution and creationism are separate theories in the first place? Has anyone thought about the possibility *gasp* that God created us in one way, and we evolved over time? Would that not agree with both science and religion?
That's what I say. Kind of. :cool:
Sergeant
11-09-2006, 21:27
Christian - Other per the poll choices. Specifically, I'm of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. LDS for short. Also known as Mormons.
No we don't have multiple wives, please don't fall for that weed of a misconception.
No we don't have horns.
No I won't show you my special underwear, whatever that means.
Yes we believe in Christ, hence the name of our church. He's the central figure of our religion.
No we don't hate gays, sacrifice babies or have secret rituals.
There, I think that about clears things up.
Star Dust
11-09-2006, 23:03
EDIT:
Theist (to both) - "God/s exist."
Atheist (to both) - "God/s do/es not exist."
Agnostic (to both) - "Prove it."
Happy?
Better, but your labels aren't correct. It would have to be:
[Gnostic/Strong] theist (to both) - "God exists."
Strong atheist (to both) - "God/s do/es not exist."
Agnostic (to both) - "Prove it."
wut i dont understand is why people refuse to beieve that we were created.
it is impossible for a being this complex to happen by pure chance
so what are your theories on evolution and creationism and what not
Actually no, it is possible. It is however impossible for living organisms to exist this long in a mutagenic environment with selective pressure without evolving.
Can anyone explain to me why evolution and creationism are separate theories in the first place? Has anyone thought about the possibility *gasp* that God created us in one way, and we evolved over time? Would that not agree with both science and religion?
Don't tell Grim, but Intelligent Design actually accepts evolution. And makes no comment on whether or not we were created. God just tweaks the evolution process a bit...
No we don't hate gays
No, you just hate their condition, right? :scratch:
Welcome back, long time no see.
Moosashi
12-09-2006, 01:17
Pastafarian
Star Dust is right.
The statement: "one is either theist or not theist (=atheist)" is a tautological truth. Just like it's absolutely true that it is either raining or it is not raining. Since agnostics don't believe in god(s), they must be atheists as well.
bladesyz
12-09-2006, 01:33
Can anyone explain to me why evolution and creationism are separate theories in the first place? Has anyone thought about the possibility *gasp* that God created us in one way, and we evolved over time? Would that not agree with both science and religion?
Then, where does God come from? How did he create the universe?
Star Dust
12-09-2006, 01:43
Since agnostics don't believe in god(s), they must be atheists as well.
There are agnostics who believe in a god, too. They do so through faith or any other kind of irrational "reason."
Pastafarian
Star Dust is right.
The statement: "one is either theist or not theist (=atheist)" is a tautological truth. Just like it's absolutely true that it is either raining or it is not raining. Since agnostics don't believe in god(s), they must be atheists as well.
True, except "not theist" =/= "atheist", despite what the Latin root means. Atheist has a specific English usage.
P.S. "x is either in A or in A~" is not always true.
RevenantsKnight
12-09-2006, 02:33
Can anyone explain to me why evolution and creationism are separate theories in the first place? Has anyone thought about the possibility *gasp* that God created us in one way, and we evolved over time? Would that not agree with both science and religion?
They're separate theories because some people take the seven days of creation literally. Additionally, many of them and others also believe that God created "perfect" forms, and therefore the kind of change suggested by evolution is unnecessary.
Of course, there are also significant numbers of believers who see no conflict between the existence of the Christian God (or any deity) and evolution.
They're separate theories because some people take the seven days of creation literally. Additionally, many of them and others also believe that God created "perfect" forms, and therefore the kind of change suggested by evolution is unnecessary.
Yeah, God made them perfect and so they didn't evolve, but a lot of creationists will also tell you that people "degenerated" after Adam and Eve (and again after the flood) to patch up the fact that otherwise the human race would've been breaking God's commandments against incest.
SaroDarksbane
12-09-2006, 03:00
Yeah, God made them perfect and so they didn't evolve, but a lot of creationists will also tell you that people "degenerated" after Adam and Eve (and again after the flood) to patch up the fact that otherwise the human race would've been breaking God's commandments against incest.
Meh.
I've always considered God to be a rational being. I.e. he didn't give us rules just to be annoying and ruin our fun, but that there's a reason behind them. (Much like a "Do Not Enter" sign on a one way street). Figuring out what those reasons are and the spirit of the law, is, in my opinion, much more important than just blindly following the letter of the law.
You can thump someone over the head with the Bible all day, screaming at them about how the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, but if you fail to take into account the context of the passage, and its full meaning (Not engaging in ritual homosexual sex and temple prostitution as a part of keeping Israel separate from the surrounding pagan practices), you've become a Pharisee, to blindly quote the law without trying to fulfill the underlying reasoning.
Module88
12-09-2006, 03:35
Then, where does God come from? How did he create the universe?
It's said that he existed, and that it is beyond our comprehension. At the very least, religion puts an end to the chain. With science, you can't ever stop asking , "how did this come from that," and so on.
They're separate theories because some people take the seven days of creation literally. Additionally, many of them and others also believe that God created "perfect" forms, and therefore the kind of change suggested by evolution is unnecessary.
Does it say anywhere in the Bible that God created "perfect" forms? Created in his image is one thing. Created perfect is quite a stretch from there.
bladesyz
12-09-2006, 04:44
It's said that he existed, and that it is beyond our comprehension. At the very least, religion puts an end to the chain. With science, you can't ever stop asking , "how did this come from that," and so on.
Why is it, then, that Religion is trying to answer Scientific questions?
Module88
12-09-2006, 05:00
Why is it, then, that Religion is trying to answer Scientific questions?
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I certainly hope you're not trying to take the words of "religious authority" as the words of the entire religion. In the end, they're words of flawed humans. That doesn't, however, mean that religion and science can't be unified.
Meh.
I've always considered God to be a rational being. I.e. he didn't give us rules just to be annoying and ruin our fun, but that there's a reason behind them. (Much like a "Do Not Enter" sign on a one way street). Figuring out what those reasons are and the spirit of the law, is, in my opinion, much more important than just blindly following the letter of the law.
You can thump someone over the head with the Bible all day, screaming at them about how the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, but if you fail to take into account the context of the passage, and its full meaning (Not engaging in ritual homosexual sex and temple prostitution as a part of keeping Israel separate from the surrounding pagan practices), you've become a Pharisee, to blindly quote the law without trying to fulfill the underlying reasoning.
Yeah, but you're sensible so you're not really the sort of person I had in mind.
Moosashi
12-09-2006, 07:27
True, except "not theist" =/= "atheist", despite what the Latin root means. Atheist has a specific English usage.If that is so, then "atheist" has a specific misusage in the English language stemming from people's inability to understand that not believing in gods is different from believing there are no gods. If one does not affirm a belief in any god, one does not believe in any god. The proper name for one who affirms a belief in a god or gods is "theist". The proper name for one who makes no such affirmation should be "atheist". It is also the name that best describes that actual behavior of both people who describe themselves as atheists and those who describe themselves as agnostics. This is why the term should be used in such a broad sense. Characterizing oneself as agnostic, but not atheistic is contrary to common sense because that characterization asserts that any random thought is as likely to be true as any other. Perhaps that is the case, but that's not how people actually behave. We should have a word that actually applies to people.
P.S. "x is either in A or in A~" is not always true.Are you saying there is something that is "not A" and not "not A"? Logically, anything that is not "not A" is "A" because if it weren't, it'd be "not A".
If that is so, then "atheist" has a specific misusage in the English language stemming from people's inability to understand that not believing in gods is different from believing there are no gods. If one does not affirm a belief in any god, one does not believe in any god. The proper name for one who affirms a belief in a god or gods is "theist". The proper name for one who makes no such affirmation should be "atheist". It is also the name that best describes that actual behavior of both people who describe themselves as atheists and those who describe themselves as agnostics. This is why the term should be used in such a broad sense. Characterizing oneself as agnostic, but not atheistic is contrary to common sense because that characterization asserts that any random thought is as likely to be true as any other. Perhaps that is the case, but that's not how people actually behave. We should have a word that actually applies to people.
I agree that it's not the right way to interpret the Latin a- prefix, but that's the way things are.
Are you saying there is something that is "not A" and not "not A"? Logically, anything that is not "not A" is "A" because if it weren't, it'd be "not A".
But what's your meta-set?
Does it say anywhere in the Bible that God created "perfect" forms? Created in his image is one thing. Created perfect is quite a stretch from there.
There's a lot of stuff that a lot of people intepret from their various religious books that is not explicitly stated in the text.
bladesyz
12-09-2006, 15:28
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I certainly hope you're not trying to take the words of "religious authority" as the words of the entire religion. In the end, they're words of flawed humans. That doesn't, however, mean that religion and science can't be unified.
The origins of life and the universe are Scientific questions. The purpose of life and the universe are philosophical questions.
Traditionally, Religion has been used as both a philosophy and an explanation of natural phenomena. Today, it is obvious that Science is far superior than Religion when it comes to natural phenomena, therefore, why is Religion still trying to do Science's job?
Star Dust
12-09-2006, 17:29
But what's your meta-set?
??????????
The statement: "one is either theist or not theist (=atheist)" is a tautological truth. Just like it's absolutely true that it is either raining or it is not raining. Since agnostics don't believe in god(s), they must be atheists as well.
Theists believe that God exists. ( + )
Atheists believe that God does not exist. ( - )
Agnostics make no such claim. ( ?? )
To hell with the Latin roots, there is a clear distinction here.
Since the existence of God(s) can neither be proven or dispoven, the defining article of both theist and atheists must be assumed by faith. As the agnostic makes no such assumptions, his/her position is far more defensible.
Module88
12-09-2006, 18:54
The origins of life and the universe are Scientific questions. The purpose of life and the universe are philosophical questions.
Traditionally, Religion has been used as both a philosophy and an explanation of natural phenomena. Today, it is obvious that Science is far superior than Religion when it comes to natural phenomena, therefore, why is Religion still trying to do Science's job?
Again, you're presuming that the words of a "religious authority" speak for the whole religion (in other words, that because they say X phenomena happens for Y reason, the whole religion must believe that). There are some phenomena (http://www.spiritdaily.org/Sign_Wonders/bolognastudy.htm) that even science (http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html) can't explain (where we should be able to explain it by modern methods). There are a couple other things I've seen on the HC, but I can't quite remember the names, so I'm having a hard time trying to look for it.
Star Dust
12-09-2006, 23:10
Theists believe that God exists. ( + )
Atheists believe that God does not exist. ( - )
Agnostics make no such claim. ( ?? )
To hell with the Latin roots, there is a clear distinction here.
Since the existence of God(s) can neither be proven or dispoven, the defining article of both theist and atheists must be assumed by faith. As the agnostic makes no such assumptions, his/her position is far more defensible.
Incorrect. I went over this in another thread:
There is more than one form of atheism. The most common distinction between kinds of atheists is that between weak atheists and strong atheists. However, the only one thing common to all kinds of atheists is a lack of belief in deities. Therefore, that's all you can say atheism is: a lack of belief.
There are two different issues to consider when labelling someone in reference to this topic. These issues are belief and knowledge. They are not the same thing. Belief is usually based off of knowledge, but it doesn't have to be. Contrarily, lack of belief is usually based off of lack of knowledge, but it doesn't have to be.
Taking both belief and knowledge into account, there are four possible positions on this topic. One is belief in a deity without knowledge of the deity's existence. Two is belief in a deity while claiming knowledge of the deity's existence. Three is a lack of belief without knowledge of the deity's nonexistence. Four is a lack of belief while claiming knowledge of the deity's nonexistence. How shall we label them? We already have a term that references knowledge (or a lack thereof): agnosticism. The term, coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, was a response to the "Gnostics" that lived centuries earlier. These Gnostics claimed to have secret knowledge concerning Christianity and God, and hence drew their name from the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis. Mr. Huxley wasn't so arrogant and decided to label himself as possessing no such knowledge of the divine. He used the Greek prefix meaning "without/lacking" (a-) and appended it to the word gnostic. So we have "agnostic" which means "without knowledge," and in this context it means "without knowledge of the divine/deities."
So, going back to our four, the two types who don't claim to know of the existence of nonexistence of gods, one believer and one not, are agnostics in one respect. What word shall we use to denote their belief or lack thereof? Theism and atheism work just fine. They, too, have Greek roots, from the Greek word for god, theos, and again the prefix that means without, a-.
So we have gnostic theism, agnostic theism, agnostic atheism (weak atheism), and gnostic atheism (strong atheism). I hope by now you have noticed that agnosticism and theism or atheism are NOT mutually exclusive. Further, merely one of these labels may not be sufficient for describing someone. For example, I know that deities with contradictory or logically impossible attributes don't exist. I am a strong atheist with respect to those deities. I do not claim knowledge of the nonexistence of other deities. However, I still lack belief in them because I haven't been convinced that they exist. I am a weak atheist with respect to those deities.
The default position is not believing. This is the default position with respect to everything. You and I don't believe in the world some newb fantasy author somewhere is penning. This is simply because we don't know about it. However, lack of knowledge isn't the end of it. We also lack belief because of lacking knowledge. So, again, the default position is lacking belief and lacking knowledge. The default position does not make any claims about anything. A claim would be, for example, that the newb fantasy author's world does exist, or that God exists, or that God does not exist. Such claims carry a burden of proof. Not claiming anything, simply lacking belief, does not carry a burden of proof.
Everyone of you and I do not believe that there is a teapot orbiting Pluto. Why should we? There's simply no reason. Nobody has ever seen such a thing and it's highly unlikely, though not logically impossible, that one would be out there. But, you know, we can't disprove it's existence. Our telescopes are not powerful enough to resolve such a small object at such a great distance. And even if they could, we'd be searching forever trying to cover every cubic inch of possible space this moving target could occupy. There's no evidence against the teapot orbiting Pluto hypothesis, at least until we get better telescopes, and there no evidence for it either. We are teapot orbiting Pluto agnostics. But again, we not only don't know if there's a teapot orbiting Pluto, we don't believe there's a teapot orbiting Pluto, either. We occupy the default position with respect to this issue, and we carry no burden to prove either the existence or nonexistence of the teapot. We simply don't believe in it.
But what if there was a millennia long tradition of believing in a teapot orbiting Pluto? What if there were teapot orbiting Pluto prophets, priests, and clerics? What if almost all royalty of the past and present believed in a teapot orbiting Pluto? Would you believe in a teapot orbiting Pluto? I'd hope not. Tradition, popular opinion, and authority are not reasons. In fact, arguments that appeal to one or another have informal logical fallacies named after them. Let's say there were also otherwise very intelligent men that devised so called "proofs" that there is a teapot orbiting Pluto. Would you believe them? Maybe, because there we could have actual reasons for believing in a teapot orbiting Pluto. It depends on if these "proofs" succeed in their claim. But what if all of them, without exception, have been shown to fail in their proof? Would failed proofs be legitimate reasons for believing in a teapot orbiting Pluto? No. Are there any other reasons to believe in a teapot orbiting Pluto? No. So we are back where we started. Attempts to sway us one way, to the claim that a teapot orbiting Pluto does exist, have failed. We fall back to the middle, lacking knowledge, and also lacking belief.
Now reread the above paragraph and replace "teapot orbiting Pluto" with "god."
KillerAim
12-09-2006, 23:42
Foget it llad12. Saro established the meanings of those terms in that thread (which he started, by the way) early on. He even mentioned that there was some disagreement about how the terms are defined and that discussion could be handled in another thread.
Star Dust, when he entered the fray, ignored all of that and started to argue semantics. He even went on to say that the dictionary definitions were wrong and that his definitions were the "correct" ones.
If you want to tangle with that level of hubris, do so with fair warning.
Sergeant
13-09-2006, 00:03
I just love it when religious themed threads devolve into discussions of math, physics and logic. :rolleyes:
KillerAim
13-09-2006, 00:17
Sergeant:
Have you been gone for quite awhile, or have we just passed each other in these threads?
Sergeant
13-09-2006, 00:33
Sergeant:
Have you been gone for quite awhile, or have we just passed each other in these threads?
The first. I was gone for about a year or something close to it. I'm back because this place is the bloody Hotel California, or a massive blackhole with the hotel california at the core.
Either way, its hard to stay away from such a cool place for too long.
??????????
The set that contains both A and A~. For example, is the colour pink an atheist or a theist? It's neither.
I just love it when religious themed threads devolve into discussions of math, physics and logic. :rolleyes:
I consider that evolving...
Again, you're presuming that the words of a "religious authority" speak for the whole religion (in other words, that because they say X phenomena happens for Y reason, the whole religion must believe that). There are some phenomena (http://www.spiritdaily.org/Sign_Wonders/bolognastudy.htm) that even science (http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html) can't explain (where we should be able to explain it by modern methods). There are a couple other things I've seen on the HC, but I can't quite remember the names, so I'm having a hard time trying to look for it.
Oh, please. Miracles? I thought you were going to say something like the sixty-three properties of water (http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html) that science does not presently understand.
Moosashi
13-09-2006, 06:20
The set that contains both A and A~. For example, is the colour pink an atheist or a theist? It's neither.You're confusing the problem unnecessarily. The "meta-set" that contains pink does not contain any sensical answers to the question at hand. We're only concerned with the set of all possible answers to the question: Do you believe in god? There are two: yes or no. I don't know either means no because you can't believe in god and not know it or I need more time to formulate an answer. Notice the question is not does god exist? Again, it is do you believe god exists? One's status as an atheist or theist is about what one believes, not what is true.
For an "agnostic" to answer I don't have an opinion doesn't make sense because it's the answer to a different question: Do you have an opinion about the existence of god?
What this all comes down to is that disbelief may be reached by default and not necessarily by faith.
You're confusing the problem unnecessarily.
Maybe, maybe not. We'll see.
The "meta-set" that contains pink does not contain any sensical answers to the question at hand. We're only concerned with the set of all possible answers to the question: Do you believe in god? There are two: yes or no. I don't know means no because you can't believe in god and not know it. Notice the question is not does god exist? Again, it is do you believe god exists? One's status as an atheist or theist is about what one believes, not what is true.
So what is your meta-set? All people? In that case, what about people who are brain-dead? Are they theists or atheists?
Moosashi
13-09-2006, 06:49
So what is your meta-set? All people? In that case, what about people who are brain-dead? Are they theists or atheists?I'm not entirely sure what you mean by meta-set, but I think you're talking about the set in immediately above the sets of atheists and theists in the hierarchy. All people is fine. Brain-dead people would be atheists. They don't believe in god. Why they don't believe doesn't matter.
However, what we are really getting at is the set of answers to a yes/no question.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by meta-set,
I'm not sure what the technical word is (I never did much set theory) but for A and A~ to exist you need to define a set that contains both (and is partitioned by the complement, but I think we can ignore that for the purposes of this argument).
but I think you're talking about the set in immediately above the sets of atheists and theists in the hierarchy. All people is fine. Brain-dead people would be atheists. They don't believe in god. Why they don't believe doesn't matter.
But what if they were theists before they became brain-dead?
However, what we are really getting at is the set of answers to a yes/no question.
Not if you want to be able to say people are theists or atheists.
Moosashi
13-09-2006, 07:15
I'm not sure what the technical word is (I never did much set theory) but for A and A~ to exist you need to define a set that contains both (and is partitioned by the complement, but I think we can ignore that for the purposes of this argument).Okay, that's what I got anyway.
But what if they were theists before they became brain-dead?Then they became atheists as well as becoming brain-dead.[/quote]
Not if you want to be able to say people are theists or atheists.Would you rather pose the question to a rock or a tree or the color pink?
Then they became atheists as well as becoming brain-dead.
That's a silly definition. You can persist with it if you like, but of course seeing as it disagrees with every English definition I've ever heard I'd say it's a pointless exercise.
Would you rather pose the question to a rock or a tree or the color pink?
That's cheating, if you want to apply your argument to an object it has to be in your meta-set. With your present definition you can only say whether an ARGUMENT is atheistic or theistic, not a person.
WildBerry
13-09-2006, 07:39
Moosashi and dondrei,
you've been at it for quite a while now. Even though you are predominantly preoccupied by the use of word in the English - to which OED could give support to either of you, after all, it only states atheism to be "the theory or belief that God does not exist", I would like to remind you that the uses of words are not logical practices but rather result of society's prolonged uses. Even though I would like to follow Moosashi's logic on the issue, I often find it difficult, for in Finnish (I take it might be the same at least in the other Nordic countries) the foreign word ateisti is synonymous with Finnish term jumalankieltäjä, literally, "one that denies [the existence of / himself the alliance with] god". So if there's same sort of thing going on in the language, there is little even profound logic can do to steer it's direction. "If language were logical" is a nice game of thought, but it's not like it's going to happen.
EDT: A part that was better situated in other thread was removed.
bladesyz
13-09-2006, 17:23
Again, you're presuming that the words of a "religious authority" speak for the whole religion (in other words, that because they say X phenomena happens for Y reason, the whole religion must believe that). There are some phenomena (http://www.spiritdaily.org/Sign_Wonders/bolognastudy.htm) that even science (http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html) can't explain (where we should be able to explain it by modern methods). There are a couple other things I've seen on the HC, but I can't quite remember the names, so I'm having a hard time trying to look for it.
I'm not presuming anything about religious beliefs. I'm simply pointing out the flaws of people using religion to explain natural phenomena.
The most common fallacy with this practice is the one you just made. Just because some phenomenons can't be explained by current scientific understanding, doesn't mean religion would do a better job. As for "miracles"... no offense, but pffftt.... Too many people putting too much stock in coincidences. Like that piece of toast that has the image of Virgin Mary on it.
Star Dust
13-09-2006, 18:02
The most common fallacy with this practice is the one you just made. Just because some phenomenons can't be explained by current scientific understanding, doesn't mean religion would do a better job.
And, in fact, religion only offers vacuous explanations. "Such and such happened, we don't know how, we assert God did it." God is just a label for our ignorance. One must ask, "How do you know?" To answer that question, the event must be studied in a scientific manner and be replicated in laboratory conditions. Like it or not, this is how you objectively figure out how **** happens. Unfortunately due to a bunch of idiots that take some old stories too seriously, the word 'science' carries a lot of baggage. It's just the rigorous study of what happens in the natural world.
So it's not just science vs. religion or science vs. all for explanations, it's either the event had natural causes or it had supernatural causes. To find out we need to study it, not blindly throw out names.
Like that piece of toast that has the image of Virgin Mary on it.
Gib toast plz.
{KOW}Spazed
13-09-2006, 23:40
I've still never understood why people who argue against God can't grasp the concept of Faith. Of course everything can be explained scientifically. If there was something that couldn't be explained then there would be proof of God and Faith couldn't happen.
Call it a cop out, it isn't any more so than saying God doesn't exist because you can explain stuff.
I've still never understood why people who argue against God can't grasp the concept of Faith. Of course everything can be explained scientifically. If there was something that couldn't be explained then there would be proof of God and Faith couldn't happen.
Call it a cop out, it isn't any more so than saying God doesn't exist because you can explain stuff.
Not that I necessarily agree with the converse to your argument, but I'd like to point out that not all religions - not even all denominations of Christianity, in fact far from it - are fideistic.
raffster
14-09-2006, 01:51
And, in fact, religion only offers vacuous explanations. "Such and such happened, we don't know how, we assert God did it." God is just a label for our ignorance. One must ask, "How do you know?" To answer that question, the event must be studied in a scientific manner and be replicated in laboratory conditions. Like it or not, this is how you objectively figure out how **** happens. Unfortunately due to a bunch of idiots that take some old stories too seriously, the word 'science' carries a lot of baggage. It's just the rigorous study of what happens in the natural world.
So it's not just science vs. religion or science vs. all for explanations, it's either the event had natural causes or it had supernatural causes. To find out we need to study it, not blindly throw out names.
There are things that simply cannot be studied. Period. If it could be studied that means we could understand how it works or why it is, correct?
God IS not a label of our ignorance bur rather, God REPRESENTS the great things in this world that no amount of intelligence, knowledge and wisdom will be able to muster. Faith, hope and love, for example. Are those chemical reactions or brain impulses that can be measured via scientific instrument? And if they could be measured, where do they originate from? I am not saying here that Faith, Hope and Love comes from God but they do come from somewhere. If they come from the heart, how does it get there?
Lastly, belief in God is, above all, a manifestation of humility.
Star Dust
14-09-2006, 03:39
I've still never understood why people who argue against God can't grasp the concept of Faith. Of course everything can be explained scientifically. If there was something that couldn't be explained then there would be proof of God and Faith couldn't happen.
Call it a cop out, it isn't any more so than saying God doesn't exist because you can explain stuff.
How is faith in the Christian god any better than faith in Santa Claus?
Star Dust
14-09-2006, 03:51
If it could be studied that means we could understand how it works or why it is, correct?
Incorrect. We could know what the studies reveal to us. What it doesn't reveal remains unknown, not a canvas upon which paint your favorite magic and superstition. Because if you call it something that isn't revealed, I merely ask, how do you know? And all you've got is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html)
God IS not a label of our ignorance bur rather, God REPRESENTS the great things in this world that no amount of intelligence, knowledge and wisdom will be able to muster. Faith, hope and love, for example. Are those chemical reactions or brain impulses that can be measured via scientific instrument?
If we had fine enough, non-invasive scientific instruments, then I'm sure we could.
So what, anyway? We can't explain X, therefore X is caused by God. Wait, how do you purport to explain X with God when you say upfront that X is unexplained?
See what I'm getting at?
And if they could be measured, where do they originate from?
Somewhere in the brain? Who cares?
Lastly, belief in God is, above all, a manifestation of humility.
Ok, that's enough without the all important question: What is God?
I've still never understood why people who argue against God can't grasp the concept of Faith. Of course everything can be explained scientifically. If there was something that couldn't be explained then there would be proof of God and Faith couldn't happen.
Call it a cop out, it isn't any more so than saying God doesn't exist because you can explain stuff.
Surely, they have faith that God doesn't exist, right? :jig:
Star Dust
14-09-2006, 04:23
Surely, they have faith that God doesn't exist, right? :jig:
Heh, that's a great point and I forgot about it. If having faith in something is a valid statement of its truth, then I have faith God doesn't exist. And we're back to square one.
raffster
14-09-2006, 04:54
Somewhere in the brain? Who cares?
Of course it's very important to care. If we don't care then there's no point to any of this. If we don't care where faith, hope and love originates from then there's really no point trying to figure out where the unexplainable comes from. If we cannot care enough to know where things that are real to us such as faith, hope and love are actually real enough to be measured in a scientific sense then all pursuit of belief in God is futile.
Ok, that's enough without the all important question: What is God?
I don't scientifically "know" what or who God is but because of faith I know that there is a God. I also know from faith that God is a supernatural being/person who made himself known through Jesus.
How is faith in the Christian god any better than faith in Santa Claus?
1. Christian perspective -- You cannot have faith in Santa Claus because there is NO Santa Claus. To most Christians, Jesus established his divinity through his life, the testimony of his apostles and disciples and the power of his spirit that has prevailed 2000 years after he left this world. You can only have faith in something or someone that is real whether naturally or supernaturally. You cannot have faith in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy simply because having faith in them defies the very definition of faith. You can believe in them but that belief doesn't necessarily tantamount to faith (at least from this perspective).
Faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1 as "Being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (NIV)
Do you hope for and are certain of Santa Claus, seriously?
2. Buddhist perspective -- faith comes from the Pali word "saddha" which is translated as "confidence". Faith is based on having confidence on the Triple Gem, the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. Once again the basis of faith is upon something that is known to be real and true whether naturally or supernaturally.
The most important purpose of faith is that it serves as a guiding beacon in our lives because of the power that comes from the object of its belief. It is very difficult to have faith in Santa Claus because right from the onset you already know that Santa isn't real. But if believing in Santa (or having faith in him) makes you a kinder and more compassionate person then more power to you.
Moosashi
14-09-2006, 04:57
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.htmlThat is a great site.
Incorrect. We could know what the studies reveal to us. What it doesn't reveal remains unknown, not a canvas upon which paint your favorite magic and superstition. Because if you call it something that isn't revealed, I merely ask, how do you know? And all you've got is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html)
Actually, he's right as long as he restricts his comments to undisprovables and other non-scientific areas. Which I think implicitly he was doing.
My belief is belief in science.
I have faith in science and the scientific method for exploring and answering questions about humanity, life, and the universe.
Star Dust
14-09-2006, 13:45
Of course it's very important to care. If we don't care then there's no point to any of this. If we don't care where faith, hope and love originates from then there's really no point trying to figure out where the unexplainable comes from. If we cannot care enough to know where things that are real to us such as faith, hope and love are actually real enough to be measured in a scientific sense then all pursuit of belief in God is futile.
I'm sorry, I meant as far as this discussion is concerned, who cares? They are sensations/feelings, which occur in your brain. Where exactly? Who cares?
I don't scientifically "know" what or who God is but because of faith I know that there is a God. I also know from faith that God is a supernatural being/person who made himself known through Jesus.
Well, because of faith I know that there isn't a god.
Christian perspective -- You cannot have faith in Santa Claus because there is NO Santa Claus.
Really?! I eagerly await your proof of the nonexistence of Santa Claus.
You can only have faith in something or someone that is real whether naturally or supernaturally.
Once again the basis of faith is upon something that is known to be real and true whether naturally or supernaturally.
If you know something is real then there's no need for faith. You don't talk about having faith in Mars or faith in the clothes you are wearing. Faith is needed when there's no rational reason to believe in something.
Do you hope for and are certain of Santa Claus, seriously?
No, but what if I did? Could you discount my faith? Why?
But if believing in Santa (or having faith in him) makes you a kinder and more compassionate person then more power to you.
But having faith in Santa Claus also means I believe he exists. If faith means anything in this respect, how could you say otherwise?
Module88
15-09-2006, 01:34
Oh, please. Miracles? I thought you were going to say something like the sixty-three properties of water (http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html) that science does not presently understand.
Put a piece of bread in a fire. Take a guess at what's going to happen.
The most common fallacy with this practice is the one you just made. Just because some phenomenons can't be explained by current scientific understanding, doesn't mean religion would do a better job. As for "miracles"... no offense, but pffftt.... Too many people putting too much stock in coincidences. Like that piece of toast that has the image of Virgin Mary on it.
I certainly hope this is a joke. Since two people brought this up, I'll just explain it- sort of.
If I were to put a piece of bread in a fire, I would say that it's going to burn. Now you might believe otherwise, but I believe, based on my scientific knowledge and own experiences with a toaster, that the bread will burn. You can dispute that all you want. I can pretty much guarantee you that if you throw a piece of bread into a fire, it's going to burn.
Is this a phenomena science can't explain?
Because you seem to be saying that science can't explain why a piece of bread burns when tossed into a fire.
Of course, I highly doubt you even looked at the two links (the first one especially). Am I right?
Of course everything can be explained scientifically.
Care to place a bet on that one?
LOL, you actually believe that nonsense, don't you? Funny how it's hosted on "spirituality.org".
Gib impartial evidence plz.
Module88
15-09-2006, 04:04
LOL, you actually believe that nonsense, don't you? Funny how it's hosted on "spirituality.org".
Gib impartial evidence plz.
If you can read French/Italian, feel free to take a look at the original documents.
bladesyz
15-09-2006, 04:29
I certainly hope this is a joke. Since two people brought this up, I'll just explain it- sort of.
If I were to put a piece of bread in a fire, I would say that it's going to burn. Now you might believe otherwise, but I believe, based on my scientific knowledge and own experiences with a toaster, that the bread will burn. You can dispute that all you want. I can pretty much guarantee you that if you throw a piece of bread into a fire, it's going to burn.
Is this a phenomena science can't explain?
Because you seem to be saying that science can't explain why a piece of bread burns when tossed into a fire.
Of course, I highly doubt you even looked at the two links (the first one especially). Am I right?
Care to place a bet on that one?
That was the most confusing rambling I've ever seen. What are you trying to say?
Module88
15-09-2006, 04:38
That was the most confusing rambling I've ever seen. What are you trying to say?
? I don't know why it's so complicated for you two.
Piece of bread in fire. What's going to happen to it? Take a wild guess.
bladesyz
15-09-2006, 04:49
? I don't know why it's so complicated for you two.
Piece of bread in fire. What's going to happen to it? Take a wild guess.
And what does that have to do with religious beliefs?
Module88
15-09-2006, 05:15
And what does that have to do with religious beliefs?
Are. You. Kidding. Me.
Lemme break it down for you.
There are some phenomena that even science can't explain (where we should be able to explain it by modern methods).
Just because some phenomenons can't be explained by current scientific understanding, doesn't mean religion would do a better job. As for "miracles"... no offense, but pffftt.... Too many people putting too much stock in coincidences.
If you throw a piece of bread in a fire, is it gonna burn? Can our scientific principles take a wild guess here and give us a prediction?
I'm gonna answer this just for you.
Yes, the bread will burn. Can our scientific knowledge tell us why bread burns?
Yes or no?
If the answer is yes, how is it that this particular piece of bread defied ALL scientific principles, understanding, and knowledge? Why is it that all pieces of bread, when thrown into a fire, will burn, but this one won't?
These events DEFY KNOWN factual, scientific principles!
What basically happened was an apple fell from a tree and went up instead of down. We KNOW it should go down. Science tells us it should go down. But it didn't. Are you getting this? :banghead:
Edit:
This is not some unknown field of physics. I didn't pick the fire and bread example just because I felt like it.
I assumed (wrongly) that people would know that if you throw a piece of bread in a fire, it will burn. This can be scientifically proven and tested at home. Furthermore, we know why things will burn, and we even know at what temperature things must reach in order to burn. This is scientific fact. We're not guessing.
This particular event defied all of that. I hope this clears things up.
bladesyz
15-09-2006, 06:00
If the answer is yes, how is it that this particular piece of bread defied ALL scientific principles, understanding, and knowledge? Why is it that all pieces of bread, when thrown into a fire, will burn, but this one won't?
These events DEFY KNOWN factual, scientific principles!
I'm gonna assume that in one of those links you presented, there's a piece of bread that doesn't burn.
OMGWTFGODEXISTSBBQLOL!!!111
Imagine that, a miracle site claiming the existence of a "miracle"!
P.S.
A water-soaked piece of bread won't burn.
Now that I think of it, a fossilized piece won't burn either.
Module88
15-09-2006, 06:14
I'm gonna assume that in one of those links you presented, there's a piece of bread that doesn't burn.
OMGWTFGODEXISTSBBQLOL!!!111
Imagine that, a miracle site claiming the existence of a "miracle"!
Ah, the "I didn't read your evidence but will comment on the foolishness of your claim" excuse. You can say all you want. The scientists are on my side. Of course, yet another strawman I have to clear up- I didn't try to prove or disprove the existence of God. However, I am trying to show what I said earlier (that you clearly missed).
There are some phenomena that even science can't explain (where we should be able to explain it by modern methods).
Just because some phenomenons can't be explained by current scientific understanding, doesn't mean religion would do a better job.
Blade, if you aren't going to read the links (or even look at them), don't try to disprove them. It just makes you look foolish. No wonder you're confused. :rolleyes:
P.S.
A water-soaked piece of bread won't burn.
Now that I think of it, a fossilized piece won't burn either.
It wasn't a water-soaked piece of bread, nor was it a fossilized piece of bread. Of course, had you taken a look before making a comment about it, you would have known that.
There are plenty of rational explanations for why it wouldn't burn, even if that were true (which you have not established).
bladesyz
15-09-2006, 06:50
Ah, the "I didn't read your evidence but will comment on the foolishness of your claim" excuse. You can say all you want. The scientists are on my side. Of course, yet another strawman I have to clear up- I didn't try to prove or disprove the existence of God. However, I am trying to show what I said earlier (that you clearly missed).
Really? The scientists are at your side? Which ones? Got any independent sources? Got any peer-reviewed papers? Got any empirical evidences?
Blade, if you aren't going to read the links (or even look at them), don't try to disprove them. It just makes you look foolish. No wonder you're confused. :rolleyes:
It wasn't a water-soaked piece of bread, nor was it a fossilized piece of bread. Of course, had you taken a look before making a comment about it, you would have known that.
Well, sorry if I don't feel like reading through yet another religious site claiming miracles.
Your comment of disproving them is pretty reminiscent of the Atheist vs Agnostic debate. Why do I need to disprove anything? Aren't they the ones claiming miracles? Shouldn't they be proving it to me?
Module88
15-09-2006, 06:56
Really? The scientists are at your side? Which ones? Got any independent sources? Got any peer-reviewed papers? Got any empirical evidences?
Like you'd look? :rolleyes:
Well, sorry if I don't feel like reading through yet another religious site claiming miracles.
Your comment of disproving them is pretty reminiscent of the Atheist vs Agnostic debate. Why do I need to disprove anything? Aren't they the ones claiming miracles? Shouldn't they be proving it to me?
That was fast.
Moosashi
15-09-2006, 07:04
One of the most important aspects of science is that it assumes all phenomena have natural explanations that can be discovered through science. If the scientist allows the existence of miracles, he must consider the possibility that a miracle is responsible for any phenomenon he wishes to explain.
Module88, I sincerely hope that your ideas about what science can and cannot explain don't come from religious sites describing so-called miracles. There's a reason why these things aren't published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, you know. The methods used to test these "miracles" aren't rigorous. They're uncontrolled, incomplete and often just completely wrong. The failure of these methods to reveal a natural explanation does not mean that the phenomena defy science.
There are mysteries in science, but there are none for which there is no theoretically testable hypothesis. Scientists will invariably come up with plausible natural explanations, even if they have to modify existing theory, to explain the unexplained. They might not get around to testing these hypotheses right away, but that's just a matter of time and money.
As to your miracles, I gave up looking for where they actually talk about the bread, and the article about the blood is so vague on methods as to be laughable. By the way, I know of no scientific law that makes the prediction: all bread burns.
There are mysteries in science, but there are none for which there is no theoretically testable hypothesis.
Except in psychology. Psst... psychology isn't really a science.
Module88
15-09-2006, 07:24
One of the most important aspects of science is that it assumes all phenomena have natural explanations that can be discovered through science. If the scientist allows the existence of miracles, he must consider the possibility that a miracle is responsible for any phenomenon he wishes to explain.
Module88, I sincerely hope that your ideas about what science can and cannot explain don't come from religious sites describing so-called miracles. There's a reason why these things aren't published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, you know. The methods used to test these "miracles" aren't rigorous. They're uncontrolled, incomplete and often just completely wrong. The failure of these methods to reveal a natural explanation does not mean that the phenomena defy science.
There are mysteries in science, but there are none for which there is no theoretically testable hypothesis. Scientists will invariably come up with plausible natural explanations, even if they have to modify existing theory, to explain the unexplained. They might not get around to testing these hypotheses right away, but that's just a matter of time and money.
As to your miracles, I gave up looking for where they actually talk about the bread, and the article about the blood is so vague on methods as to be laughable. By the way, I know of no scientific law that makes the prediction: all bread burns.
Of course not. Such things, however, should bear scientific scrutiny (as I believe the first one did, though that too is vague). Though I'd hardly accept that as evidence for a God, there are more than enough paranormal things in this world that science can't (but should be able to) explain. That's not hard evidence either way, but it's certainly an interesting prospect to think about. As for the last part, it's a matter of science as well. The chemical bonds will undoubtedly break a certain point (which varies from bread to bread, obviously), but I think you can agree that a normal piece of bread placed in a fire will burn for that very reason- the chemical bonds are broken by the energy of the fire.
Naturally, claims that contradict this should be investigated. And of course, there are thing science simply cannot explain, and those are things we must discuss amongst ourselves. Science, however advanced it may become, can't explain everything.
There are plenty of things that science can't explain because it shouldn't be able to. It is impossible to prove that there is anything that it should be able to but can't, though. You can't prove a negative.
Module88
15-09-2006, 07:36
There are plenty of things that science can't explain because it shouldn't be able to. It is impossible to prove that there is anything that it should be able to but can't, though. You can't prove a negative.
Ok. I thought, "and of course, there are thing science simply cannot explain, and those are things we must discuss amongst ourselves" was sufficient, but whatever.
Raistlin Majere
15-09-2006, 07:42
I selected other.
I considered mentioning it, but not with the current trend of the thread.
thegiantturtle
15-09-2006, 13:15
Of course not. Such things, however, should bear scientific scrutiny (as I believe the first one did, though that too is vague).If it was done rigorously, it would be written up rigorously. No one ever intentionally weakens their argument when writing it up.
Though I'd hardly accept that as evidence for a God, there are more than enough paranormal things in this world that science can't (but should be able to) explain.What specifically are you talking about? I took a philosophy of parapsychology class from the former president of the Parapsychological Association (http://www.parapsych.org/), and all I got out of that was anecdotal evidence. I'd think that if there was anything better, he would have presented it to us. (EDIT: Also remember that unknown does not mean unknowable. People used to think that diseases were mysteries. Now we know about bacteria and viruses. Maybe we'll find out that there were heretofor undiscovered particles or non matter that caused paranormal behavior.)
As for the last part, it's a matter of science as well. The chemical bonds will undoubtedly break a certain point (which varies from bread to bread, obviously), but I think you can agree that a normal piece of bread placed in a fire will burn for that very reason- the chemical bonds are broken by the energy of the fire. Can you link directly to the unburning bread? I can't seem to find it either.
Moosashi
15-09-2006, 16:18
Science, however advanced it may become, can't explain everything.You may be right, but I see no reason why that must be the case. In fact, science by its very nature purports to be able to explain everything. Plus, the major result of the scientific revolution was that we no longer advance supernatural explanations for things that seem mysterious. We always assume there is a natural explanation even if our hypotheses haven't been much tested yet.
bladesyz
15-09-2006, 17:10
Science, however advanced it may become, can't explain everything.
And just because science can't explain everything, doesn't mean religious explanations have any value. Which is what I said in the first place.
Module88
15-09-2006, 17:21
If it was done rigorously, it would be written up rigorously. No one ever intentionally weakens their argument when writing it up.
What specifically are you talking about? I took a philosophy of parapsychology class from the former president of the Parapsychological Association (http://www.parapsych.org/), and all I got out of that was anecdotal evidence. I'd think that if there was anything better, he would have presented it to us. (EDIT: Also remember that unknown does not mean unknowable. People used to think that diseases were mysteries. Now we know about bacteria and viruses. Maybe we'll find out that there were heretofor undiscovered particles or non matter that caused paranormal behavior.)
Let's pick ghosts. Now, could there be a scientific explanation for the existence (under the presumption they exist)? Of course. But from what we know now, I think we can often characterize them as the past "souls" (if you will) of previous beings, right? Often enough we've heard about the ghost of the former ______. Not that such a thing is proof of the existence/nonexistence of a God, but shouldn't such things bring into light our questions of an after-life? Take a show like Ghost Hunters (is that even what it's called)? Being on TV, I'm highly skeptical of the scientific methods they use, and whether any editing has been done or not. At first glance, it seems quite good. But I'm still skeptical of it.
Of course, I still don't believe Steve Irwin died. :grin: I want to see his body first. O_O
Can you link directly to the unburning bread? I can't seem to find it either.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/holland.html
Here's probably a better one to look at, though again, I'm skeptical of the analysis and source.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
Again, it's important to by cynical and skeptical of such things. None of this things should be considered concrete evidence either way. They should, however, be considered as things that MAY disagree with modern science, and thus be rigorously tested. There is reportedly a chalis (not quite sure if it's even a chalis) in Italy that has Jesus's blood in it (I believe it also replenishes itself), but I don't quite remember the name of it. I'm sure it'd be an interesting topic to discuss if anyone knows what I'm talking about, though. Some help?
You may be right, but I see no reason why that must be the case. In fact, science by its very nature purports to be able to explain everything. Plus, the major result of the scientific revolution was that we no longer advance supernatural explanations for things that seem mysterious. We always assume there is a natural explanation even if our hypotheses haven't been much tested yet.
Of course not. But can science ever explain love? The purpose of life? My point is science can't answer and explain everything. There are some issues that are left to our conscious, and whether that's by design or nature is irrelevant.
And just because science can't explain everything, doesn't mean religious explanations have any value.
You really really need to work on this strawmanning. I never said, or even tried to imply, religious explanations had any more value.
BUT, if something were to go against modern, scientific fact, and disobeyed laws that applied to everything except one particular thing, we have a couple options.
A) Revise our law to fit this scenario as well.
B) Accept this is as something just out of the ordinary, and perhaps call it a miracle.
Normally, we'd start with process A. But if we can't apply this, then what?
bladesyz
15-09-2006, 17:41
You really really need to work on this strawmanning. I never said, or even tried to imply, religious explanations had any more value.
This all started because you said religion could fill the holes in science (God could've created the universe and let it evolve), to which I pointed out that, unlike scientific theories, religious explanations had no rational basis. Just because it offers one (God did it) doesn't mean it's true.
BUT, if something were to go against modern, scientific fact, and disobeyed laws that applied to everything except one particular thing, we have a couple options.
A) Revise our law to fit this scenario as well.
B) Accept this is as something just out of the ordinary, and perhaps call it a miracle.
Normally, we'd start with process A. But if we can't apply this, then what?
If you're talking about natural phenomenon, then there is no reason, other than technological limitations, why we can't apply A.
If you're talking about metaphysics, philosophy, and morality, science doesn't deal with those anyway.
thegiantturtle
15-09-2006, 18:56
Let's pick ghosts. Now, could there be a scientific explanation for the existence (under the presumption they exist)? Of course. But from what we know now, I think we can often characterize them as the past "souls" (if you will) of previous beings, right? Often enough we've heard about the ghost of the former ______. Not that such a thing is proof of the existence/nonexistence of a God, but shouldn't such things bring into light our questions of an after-life? Take a show like Ghost Hunters (is that even what it's called)? Being on TV, I'm highly skeptical of the scientific methods they use, and whether any editing has been done or not. At first glance, it seems quite good. But I'm still skeptical of it. Anyone that knows anything about paranormal behavior does not believe "ghosts" actually exist. Ghostly paranormal behavior is normally linked with teen angst and possible unintentional psychokinesis. It's not that the paranormal behavior may be caused by ghosts, so we should question the after life. It's that there is paranormal behavior, and questions about the after life, so we think of ghosts. By assuming the phenomena are ghosts, you're begging the question.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/holland.html
Here's probably a better one to look at, though again, I'm skeptical of the analysis and source.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.htmlHow about something that happened in the last couple hundred years? It's interesting that since the advent of cameras, there have been very few miracles. The more solid ways their are to document an event and provide evidence, the less likely it is for one of these events to occur.
Again, it's important to by cynical and skeptical of such things. None of this things should be considered concrete evidence either way. They should, however, be considered as things that MAY disagree with modern science, and thus be rigorously tested. There is reportedly a chalis (not quite sure if it's even a chalis) in Italy that has Jesus's blood in it (I believe it also replenishes itself), but I don't quite remember the name of it. I'm sure it'd be an interesting topic to discuss if anyone knows what I'm talking about, though. Some help?There's an old cup with blood in it. Not too shocking. How could they tell if it's jesus' blood? Do we have a DNA profile on him? Also, if it's not well documented, then it's likely to be a fraud. Has anyone actually seen this cup replenish, or does it replenish only when there are no witnesses? Everytime my coworkers see me, I'm wearing a different shirt. Science says an object at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force. What's the difference between my shirt and this chalice.
And again, even if you could show that one of these phenomena does exist (which you can't), then there is still no reason to turn to religion. It would make more sense to think there is something in science that we do not yet understand.
Star Dust
15-09-2006, 21:40
Of course not. But can science ever explain love?
Define love.
The purpose of life?
You're assuming there is one, as well as assuming there is only one.
B) Accept this is as something just out of the ordinary, and perhaps call it a miracle.
Define miracle.
Module88
15-09-2006, 22:17
This all started because you said religion could fill the holes in science (God could've created the universe and let it evolve), to which I pointed out that, unlike scientific theories, religious explanations had no rational basis. Just because it offers one (God did it) doesn't mean it's true.
:banghead: This is the last time dude. From here on out, if you make up any more stuff, I'm just not going to respond to it. I NEVER said that religion could fill the holes in science. I did say that they could concievably coexist, however.
If you're talking about natural phenomenon, then there is no reason, other than technological limitations, why we can't apply A.
If you're talking about metaphysics, philosophy, and morality, science doesn't deal with those anyway.
Paranormal activity? Not that we can't measure it in some form (EM, IR), but it's hardly indicative of what they actually are.
Ghostly paranormal behavior is normally linked with teen angst and possible unintentional psychokinesis. It's not that the paranormal behavior may be caused by ghosts, so we should question the after life.
? Figments of the imagination then? There's quite a bit of documented "evidence" of such activity, from video footage to electromagnetic and IR information at the time of the event. Are the readings a result of psychokinesis, or angst?
How about something that happened in the last couple hundred years? It's interesting that since the advent of cameras, there have been very few miracles. The more solid ways their are to document an event and provide evidence, the less likely it is for one of these events to occur.
Meh (http://www.katolik.nu/now/html/mirac.htm). Try that one. Take it as you will.
There's an old cup with blood in it. Not too shocking. How could they tell if it's jesus' blood? Do we have a DNA profile on him? Also, if it's not well documented, then it's likely to be a fraud. Has anyone actually seen this cup replenish, or does it replenish only when there are no witnesses? Everytime my coworkers see me, I'm wearing a different shirt. Science says an object at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force. What's the difference between my shirt and this chalice.
And again, even if you could show that one of these phenomena does exist (which you can't), then there is still no reason to turn to religion. It would make more sense to think there is something in science that we do not yet understand.
I can't even quite remember the name of it, so as you can imagine, the details are a bit foggy. I was wondering if anyone had heard of the same thing.
To Star:
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Can science define and explain the causes of those things? Do you think such a thing is explainable? The point is science can't answer everything. I'm not trying to prove a God exists, or vice versa, by the way (in case anyone missed that).
Catholic by birth but I am more spiritual now and do not follow a particular religion but take ideas from a variety of them.
bladesyz
16-09-2006, 00:16
:banghead: This is the last time dude. From here on out, if you make up any more stuff, I'm just not going to respond to it. I NEVER said that religion could fill the holes in science. I did say that they could concievably coexist, however.
You didn't say they could coexist, you said that there are things science can't explain, and you offered religious explanations in its stead. That's filling holes.
Science and religion coexisting means science sticks to natural phenomena, and religion sticks to philosophy and morality. That isn't the case when you say God created the world and then the world evolved. You are basically sticking religion in something we don't understand well yet: the origin of the universe.
Paranormal activity? Not that we can't measure it in some form (EM, IR), but it's hardly indicative of what they actually are.
So-called paranormal activity is just some phenomena we don't completely understand yet. Whether it's just a product of delusions, a weird coincidence, or something beyond our current understanding of natural laws, or beyond the scope of our current instruments, it can nevertheless be studied empirically and logically.
Module88
16-09-2006, 00:37
You didn't say they could coexist, you said that there are things science can't explain, and you offered religious explanations in its stead. That's filling holes.
It's one thing to say "science can't explain this, so it must be God." It's quite another to say, "science can explain this, but this doesn't follow that explanation, so it could be something else."
Science and religion coexisting means science sticks to natural phenomena, and religion sticks to philosophy and morality. That isn't the case when you say God created the world and then the world evolved. You are basically sticking religion in something we don't understand well yet: the origin of the universe.
By your definition. Again I ask- with science, can you EVER come to a conclusion? I never stuck religion in something we don't understand, rather, I asked whether it would be remotely possible that the two coexist. You are correct only up to the origin of the universe. But can science alone answer that?
The answer is no. Why? Because you can always ask, where did that come from? If you find out about the origin of the universe, you can ask, what is the origin of the origin of the universe come and so on. Religion offers that missing, end explanation. Is it necessarily true? No. But does the possibility of it being true (without conflicting with science) exist? Yes.
So-called paranormal activity is just some phenomena we don't completely understand yet. Whether it's just a product of delusions, a weird coincidence, or something beyond our current understanding of natural laws, or beyond the scope of our current instruments, it can nevertheless be studied empirically and logically.
There is a measurable amount of activity related to paranormal events that we can measure with current instruments. What the numbers actually mean is still a mystery- but we can detect it. That said, asking about the "what" isn't sufficient. The "why" is also an important aspect. All things considered, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibilities that greater beings exist outside of our realm.
Gibbzilla
16-09-2006, 04:52
Christian-Other
***EDIT***
Why does it give pleasure to non-Christians to try and tell believers how wrong and naive they are?
bladesyz
16-09-2006, 05:28
It's one thing to say "science can't explain this, so it must be God." It's quite another to say, "science can explain this, but this doesn't follow that explanation, so it could be something else."
If something doesn't follow a usual scientific prediction, that doesn't mean it's outside of scientific bounds. It just mean there are factors we are unaware of.
By your definition. Again I ask- with science, can you EVER come to a conclusion? I never stuck religion in something we don't understand, rather, I asked whether it would be remotely possible that the two coexist. You are correct only up to the origin of the universe. But can science alone answer that?
No, you can never reach a definitive conclusion, not with Science, nor with any methodology based on logic. That is due to the infinite nature of the universe.
Of course, that's what the current thinking is. For all we know, the universe could actually be finite.
The answer is no. Why? Because you can always ask, where did that come from? If you find out about the origin of the universe, you can ask, what is the origin of the origin of the universe come and so on. Religion offers that missing, end explanation. Is it necessarily true? No. But does the possibility of it being true (without conflicting with science) exist? Yes.
Religion offers AN explanation, based on nothing but conjecture and speculation, often worded in a way that cannot be disproved. Does it have the possibility of being true, however remote? Sure, but then, so does everything else and its opposite, as long as it cannot be disproved.
You say God created the universe? I say the universe does not exist. It's all just an illusion. Someone else says Satan created the universe. Yet another person says the universe was born out of Primordial Chaos and shaped by our collective beliefs. How do you determine which hypothesis is true, or more likely to be true? You can't. Therefore, all are equally worthless in the quest to understand the universe.
There is a measurable amount of activity related to paranormal events that we can measure with current instruments. What the numbers actually mean is still a mystery- but we can detect it. That said, asking about the "what" isn't sufficient. The "why" is also an important aspect. All things considered, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibilities that greater beings exist outside of our realm.
"Why" is just human values projected on meaningless objects and events. "Why", or the search for a purpose, is not the domain of science, and does not contribute to our understanding of natural laws.
bladesyz
16-09-2006, 05:28
Christian-Other
***EDIT***
Why does it give pleasure to non-Christians to try and tell believers how wrong and naive they are?
Why do Christians get upset when their beliefs are challenged?
Gibbzilla
16-09-2006, 05:33
Why do Christians get upset when their beliefs are challenged?
I don't get upset, it's just that people insist that if you don't believe in the same theories as they do, that you're obviously terribly stupid and misinformed.
Why do Christians get upset when their beliefs are challenged?
Why do you feel the need to challenge anyone's beliefs?
Star Dust
16-09-2006, 06:50
To Star:
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Can science define and explain the causes of those things? Do you think such a thing is explainable? The point is science can't answer everything. I'm not trying to prove a God exists, or vice versa, by the way (in case anyone missed that).
I just wanted definitions to work with for purposes of discussion. What is love, physically? It is electro-chemical events in the brain and body. They haven't been precisely tracked, but if someone is willing to study it, it's only a matter of time. What is the subjective experience of love? Well, such a thing is only discussed from the perspective of consciousness. But is such a subjective experience real, does it have an independent existence? In the end it's all chemical reactions, as far as we know. Subjectiveness is just the relation between one chemical reaction (love, or any feeling/emotion) and another (consciousness).
And what about miracles? If a miracle is defined as a supernatural event, then we would have no reason to call an unexplained event a miracle. An unexplained event is an unexplaned event; there is no default to the supernatural. If you wish to say it is a supernatural event, then you must have evidence that supports your case. Therein lies an inherent problem with the supernatural, but that's another discussion. The point is that you can't call the unexplained anything more than explained. Mysteries are mysteries, nothing more.
Star Dust
16-09-2006, 06:54
you can ask, what is the origin of the origin of the universe come and so on.
You can ask that of religious propositions, as well.
Let's pick ghosts. Now, could there be a scientific explanation for the existence (under the presumption they exist)?
No. Unless they're a purely physical phenomenon, which isn't the usual idea of a ghost.
you can ask, what is the origin of the origin of the universe come and so on.
A turtle.
Christian-Other
***EDIT***
Why does it give pleasure to non-Christians to try and tell believers how wrong and naive they are?
I don't get upset, it's just that people insist that if you don't believe in the same theories as they do, that you're obviously terribly stupid and misinformed.
Did anyone say that in this thread?
They probably did, I just can't remember.
Star Dust
16-09-2006, 15:05
Why does it give pleasure to non-Christians to try and tell believers how wrong and naive they are?
It doesn't give me pleasure. Debates such as this are often very tedious. I do it because believers don't merely just believe. They demean science by asserting that a creation myth has the same intellectual status as evolution or that evolution and all of the mountains of evidence that support it is false. They declare war because "God told me to." They fly planes into buildings because Allah will reward them in the afterlife. They give the credit of anything good to their daddy in the sky, and blame themselves for anything bad that happens. Etc, etc. It actually pisses me off that a fairy tale has such a huge influence on the actions of humans today. I mean, seriously, how can people be religious in this day and age?
Gibbzilla
16-09-2006, 15:29
It would be a much simpler society if everyone was allowed to believe what they wanted, without ridicule.
It would be a much simpler society if everyone was allowed to believe what they wanted, without ridicule.
I retain the right to ridicule people if they have ridiculous beliefs. Scientologists and Raelians for example.
Of course, I'm not including all religious people in this category.
bladesyz
16-09-2006, 16:44
Why do you feel the need to challenge anyone's beliefs?
Because the challenge of established beliefs is what leads to progress and understanding.
I voted for Atheism; we rule ... so far...:evil:
Dj_Otaku
16-09-2006, 21:48
I'm Roman Catholic.
Dj_Otaku
snowBlizz
16-09-2006, 22:36
I have no religion :jig:
I belive that after u die u are dead :jig:
but most ppl in norway are christian other :jig:
Breakdown
16-09-2006, 23:35
I want to put the other things aside for a moment and bring in christianity (protestant) here for a second. The Bible itself, is the biggest document that contains the events in history, and that isnt the reason why i believe in Christ. Yes there has been a prophet named Jesus and was crucified. But there was no actual proof that he was the son of god let alone perform any of the miracles. Jesus just claimed that he was the son of god. Im not here to insult anyone but to me christianity is the only religion that actually makes sense. If anybody is confused i suggest to disect the bible, not study it like a textbook, but rather read it with passion.
*Ignores the bits that contradict the other bits*
Hey, it does make sense!
TehJoker
17-09-2006, 00:43
To be Honest with you guys... I don't believe in "religion"... I mean i belive in God and the Bible but religion puts God on a time schedule and in my opinion boxes him up... I'm not gonna preach here but i guess i could be put into the catagory of Christion - other... i just wanted to make my point on the word religion...
out of bounds... ... ... maybe
WildBerry
17-09-2006, 06:32
I want to put the other things aside for a moment and bring in christianity (protestant) here for a second. The Bible itself, is the biggest document that contains the events in history, and that isnt the reason why i believe in Christ. Yes there has been a prophet named Jesus and was crucified. But there was no actual proof that he was the son of god let alone perform any of the miracles. Jesus just claimed that he was the son of god. Im not here to insult anyone but to me christianity is the only religion that actually makes sense. If anybody is confused i suggest to disect the bible, not study it like a textbook, but rather read it with passion.
Uh, dondrei addressed your thing here pretty well - you're leaving out the metaphysics and taking the Bible as a set of historical documents. It has then, of course, some validity. But are you not then missing the key concepts for Christianity? Mercy? Sin and need for salvation? Whathaveyou? List is way longer, but since I haven't been familiarised with English terminology of Christian faith, I'll leave it at that - I'm sure you know the nametags better than me. Just out of curiousity, what kind of protestant are you?
A turtle.
.
A'tun the great?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.