Its sunday, lets have a religious debate!

alfablue

Crapaud wrote:

alfablue wrote:

... Ah, well, first off, if someone had a belief without evidence, but that belief turned out to be correct, it could hardly be classed as a delusion. ...

For the belief to be proved correct there'd have to be evidence, otherwise it would remain belief / delusion.

Well yes, "if it turned out to be correct" so at that point there would be evidence and any assertion that the person had been deluded would be incorrect. For instance, Galileo was under house arrest for his "heresy" - a delusion that the sun, not the earth, was at the centre of the solar system. We now know better, we do not state that he was deluded, even though the dominant opinion at the time (and until the Catholic Church recanted in 1992) indicated otherwise.

[pedant]So, some belief may incorrectly be labelled as a delusion, if it subsequently turns out to be a correct belief, then it never was a delusion, it was merely falsely named as such [/pedant].

guilliano

alfablue wrote:

STEFANOS4784 wrote:

For those without faith;
What's the evidence for no after life?

In a previous life I learned that it is impossible to prove a negative.

That's not quite true though.... I could prove there are no pot noodles in my cupboards

alfablue

guilliano wrote:

alfablue wrote:

STEFANOS4784 wrote:

For those without faith;
What's the evidence for no after life?

In a previous life I learned that it is impossible to prove a negative.

That's not quite true though.... I could prove there are no pot noodles in my cupboards

I am not sure you can, you may not be able to see them, but they are there, in fact, they are everywhere!

DavidBelcher

guilliano wrote:

alfablue wrote:

STEFANOS4784 wrote:

For those without faith;
What's the evidence for no after life?

In a previous life I learned that it is impossible to prove a negative.

That's not quite true though.... I could prove there are no pot noodles in my cupboards

Only by opening the cupboard and looking inside it, though....there's some sort of "Schrodinger's Pot Noodle" hypothesis [1] in there somewhere.

David

[1] Although the flavour of Pot Noodle is definitely based on the Uncertainty Principle.

Spiny_Norman

djbarren wrote:

Is Heaven Real? Has anyone seen Heaven?

Yes, John, a disciple of Christ, wrote what he has seen: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as a crystal. It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass (Revelation 21:1, 11-12). (taken directly from the Bible). I believe the Bible

Ah, so your perception of reality is based on the wild hallucinations of a man who'd been stuck on an island for years, eating funny mushrooms. Right.

"djbarren wrote:

The Bible is not just a book of folklore.

True. There's a mixture of myth, allegory, poetry, imagery, exhortations, and - yes - some purportedly historical (but unsupported) accounts, some of which contradict each other.

djbarren wrote:

Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world.

Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in
his Jewish Antiquities.

How lovely. Remind me, when did Jesus die? (Hint: Before either of them were even born) So all their accounts would tell us, however detailed they were, would be that some people around the time they were alive were saying X, Y and Z, which we know anyway.

(That's without going into the sketchy detail of the passages which are said to be about Jesus - and the strong evidence that even the brief mention Josephus makes of him is a crude insertion by ideologically motivated Christians.)

nasahapley

This is a rip-roaring humdinger of a thread, amusing and worrying in equal measure, and I regret arriving rather late.

alfablue wrote:

to have faith means belief without evidence.

That's why these arguments between atheists and the god squad are so pointless - you can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into. And really, I don't care what antiquated belief system anyone subscribes to so long as they don't expect me to respect or go along with it. I do, however, remember a catholic MP coming out with the line "It's what I believe and no amount of evidence will change my mind" during a debate on abortion in the House of Commons - now that's a bit worring.

finchy

nasahapley wrote:

This is a rip-roaring humdinger of a thread, amusing and worrying in equal measure, and I regret arriving rather late.

Do you get all your slang from World War 2?

nasahapley

johnfinch wrote:

nasahapley wrote:

This is a rip-roaring humdinger of a thread, amusing and worrying in equal measure, and I regret arriving rather late.

Do you get all your slang from World War 2?

That and Terry Thomas flicks. But by jingo, it's better than following a creed that dates from Roman times

nolf

mfin wrote:

djbarren wrote:

mfin

You seem like a very angry person, who thrives on making this debate personal. So now I am some sort of idiot. For expressing what I believe in. :?

Not ance have I ever made this debate personal, and by that I mean calling people names.

And If i come across as forcefull for that I apologise. After all we do live in a free world do we not where we practice freedom of speech. [/b]

Well, you're saying daft things, if you didn't say them, it wouldn't be picked up on. You're also disrespectful of a lot of people who are dying of incurable diseases, so if you don't like the tone, tough, cos I find your views just as offensive as you might take offense at the way Ive responded to them.

Thats not a particularly liberal approach to differing opinions is it?
You can believe what you want so long as you don't disagree with me...
How about
"I detest what you say but will defend to the death you're right to say it"?
Surely thats a more appropriate maxim for the modern age.

nolf

djbarren wrote:

I think it is futile to attempt using science to validate Scripture or Faith in general; just as it is a hopeless endeavor, in my mind, to try to discredit Faith using science. I believe in God because I believe. I accept the account of Scripture that our world did not invent itself; that God created the heavens and the earth; that behind the beautiful creation is a wonderful Creator. I believe it. I choose to believe. No other evidence to the contrary has been presented as conclusive. But then, even if it were proven some day beyond reasonable doubt that life on earth did begin from a small amount of cells which went on to develop into a diversity of higher forms through random mutations and natural selection, I will still believe in God as the loving creator behind all of creation including those initial array of small cells or the very first star.

I will still believe for two reasons: First, my faith is not based on science. It is based on divine revelation. That is why it is faith.

Second, I will still believe because all that science attempts to do is understand the intricate processes of nature. Science does not claim to have the answer to the religious or metaphysical questions of humanity. Science attempts to understand the creation it was presented with, and through such understanding, make the world a better place for all who dwell therein. Science is based on observation and experimentation. Science is founded on open-mindedness; on the humility that there is a possibility that the facts it lays out today may well be shown to be wrong in the future; on respect for differing views. That’s why science is never a dogma. But if science seeks the role of religion, then it becomes something other than science. Don’t ask me to believe in science or even in evolution. I do accept and respect scientific facts that seek to understand nature and apply such knowledge to the benefit of humanity.

To ask me to believe in science or evolution is to make science an alternate religion, and to force me, then, to choose between God and the divinity of science. Such choice is the pure prerogative of the individual. And if you ask me, God always wins out in the court of faith

An interesting and very carefully written post.
Whether or not i agree with it, it would be nice if people on both sides of the debate used language as clearly and un-offensive as this.

However I would point out that by your own words it is futile to attempt to validate scripture through science. Why then join in the thread?
I'm aware of christian apologists, but have always failed to see their purpose. Christianity is based, as you said, on divine revelation and personal faith. These aren't things that you can persuade people to have. Surely the only purpose of posting, if any, is to point out that you believe Jesus is lord, and that he is the saviour of the world. That he gave his life so that we may have eternal life.

Really the only rational purpose in joining a thread such as this should be to preach what you believe, otherwise you're just arguing for arguments sake, and will never win as people have had their minds closed to God. Even if you do manage to persuade someone intellectually that your case is right, that is still ultimately pointless unless such an intellectual revolution leads to faith.

That post is based on study of christian doctrine and not necessarily a reflection of personal belief. Worth a thought though...

nolf

alfablue wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

alfablue wrote:

... Ah, well, first off, if someone had a belief without evidence, but that belief turned out to be correct, it could hardly be classed as a delusion. ...

For the belief to be proved correct there'd have to be evidence, otherwise it would remain belief / delusion.

Well yes, "if it turned out to be correct" so at that point there would be evidence and any assertion that the person had been deluded would be incorrect. For instance, Galileo was under house arrest for his "heresy" - a delusion that the sun, not the earth, was at the centre of the solar system. We now know better, we do not state that he was deluded, even though the dominant opinion at the time (and until the Catholic Church recanted in 1992) indicated otherwise.

[pedant]So, some belief may incorrectly be labelled as a delusion, if it subsequently turns out to be a correct belief, then it never was a delusion, it was merely falsely named as such [/pedant].

Was going to point this logical flaw out myself.
You're approaching the problem as one of personal beliefs and personal experience rather than universal truth. If something is true, it doesn't require people to believe it to remain true. If you see it as equally true as gravity then it becomes a bit easier to comprehend. You are right you need evidence to prove to other people that it is true, but you're assuming that there is a need to prove it to be true.

As the basis of christianity is faith and not empirical evidence, you're kind of arguing cross purposes. You'll never persuade someone out of faith using scientific arguments, likewise I don't think you can persuade someone rooted in science the beneifts of faith.
Persuade being the primary word there. I'm not sure of anyone who has ever been persuaded into faith by another man.

Other men can merely point the way and enable an individual to have a personal revelation/faith.

Sorry for the whole load of posts btw, it's just I'm studying the reformation atm, and the development of humanist thinking. Surprisingly old most of these arguments, hence the comments made by descartes, and quite a few others

partrir

Well, I go to church most Sunday's because I like the calm and peace it brings before the start of another busy week - gives me time for some quiet reflection...OK, a quiet pint or an hour or two fishing might give me the same peace and quiet, but I just like the atmosphere. Hope that makes sense.

Do I beleive it all? I suppose I beleive some of it otherwise I wouldn't go, but I would be lying if I said I stoically beleived in everything the church says.

What riles me is the zealots that give Christianity such a bad name. For example, my in laws are from the Pentecostal crowd. They hardly have time for the grandkids cos they're always doing something at the church, and the deny the existance of dinosaurs because they're not mentioned in the bible - the fact that whole skeletons have been found is not proof enough - apparently the bones in the Natural History Museum are merely "lucky" formations of rocks. Morons.

partrir

djbarren wrote:

In my opinion disease was created by God and is spread through sin.

Yeah - right. So, from the sublime - I must be a sinner cos I picked up a cold this week that my daughter caught from another kid at nursery.

And to the rediculous - What sin must my father have commited to horrendously die from a cancerous brain tumour that robbed him of all quality of life for his last 18 months on this planet. What sin did he commit that made him think he was on an aeroplane for his last 6 months, and meant that he couldn't control his bladder or bowels for his last 12 months?

Disease is spread by sin? Don't think so mate.

Mothyman

it still isnt Sunday

Gotte

nolf wrote:

djbarren wrote:

I think it is futile to attempt using science to validate Scripture or Faith in general; just as it is a hopeless endeavor, in my mind, to try to discredit Faith using science. I believe in God because I believe. I accept the account of Scripture that our world did not invent itself; that God created the heavens and the earth; that behind the beautiful creation is a wonderful Creator. I believe it. I choose to believe. No other evidence to the contrary has been presented as conclusive. But then, even if it were proven some day beyond reasonable doubt that life on earth did begin from a small amount of cells which went on to develop into a diversity of higher forms through random mutations and natural selection, I will still believe in God as the loving creator behind all of creation including those initial array of small cells or the very first star.

I will still believe for two reasons: First, my faith is not based on science. It is based on divine revelation. That is why it is faith.

Second, I will still believe because all that science attempts to do is understand the intricate processes of nature. Science does not claim to have the answer to the religious or metaphysical questions of humanity. Science attempts to understand the creation it was presented with, and through such understanding, make the world a better place for all who dwell therein. Science is based on observation and experimentation. Science is founded on open-mindedness; on the humility that there is a possibility that the facts it lays out today may well be shown to be wrong in the future; on respect for differing views. That’s why science is never a dogma. But if science seeks the role of religion, then it becomes something other than science. Don’t ask me to believe in science or even in evolution. I do accept and respect scientific facts that seek to understand nature and apply such knowledge to the benefit of humanity.

To ask me to believe in science or evolution is to make science an alternate religion, and to force me, then, to choose between God and the divinity of science. Such choice is the pure prerogative of the individual. And if you ask me, God always wins out in the court of faith

An interesting and very carefully written post.
Whether or not i agree with it, it would be nice if people on both sides of the debate used language as clearly and un-offensive as this.

However I would point out that by your own words it is futile to attempt to validate scripture through science. Why then join in the thread?
I'm aware of christian apologists, but have always failed to see their purpose. Christianity is based, as you said, on divine revelation and personal faith. These aren't things that you can persuade people to have. Surely the only purpose of posting, if any, is to point out that you believe Jesus is lord, and that he is the saviour of the world. That he gave his life so that we may have eternal life.

Really the only rational purpose in joining a thread such as this should be to preach what you believe, otherwise you're just arguing for arguments sake, and will never win as people have had their minds closed to God. Even if you do manage to persuade someone intellectually that your case is right, that is still ultimately pointless unless such an intellectual revolution leads to faith.

That post is based on study of christian doctrine and not necessarily a reflection of personal belief. Worth a thought though...

Well said that man. Well, to reiterate your first paragraph, well said both those men. I might not agree with DJbarren's viewpoint, but I'm much more inclined to give posts like the one above the time of day when they are so well put. As with yours, nolf. Shame so many posts just descend into antagonism, insult and the obvious.

mfin

nolf wrote:

mfin wrote:

djbarren wrote:

mfin

You seem like a very angry person, who thrives on making this debate personal. So now I am some sort of idiot. For expressing what I believe in. :?

Not ance have I ever made this debate personal, and by that I mean calling people names.

And If i come across as forcefull for that I apologise. After all we do live in a free world do we not where we practice freedom of speech. [/b]

Well, you're saying daft things, if you didn't say them, it wouldn't be picked up on. You're also disrespectful of a lot of people who are dying of incurable diseases, so if you don't like the tone, tough, cos I find your views just as offensive as you might take offense at the way Ive responded to them.

Thats not a particularly liberal approach to differing opinions is it?
You can believe what you want so long as you don't disagree with me...
How about
"I detest what you say but will defend to the death you're right to say it"?
Surely thats a more appropriate maxim for the modern age.

No, its not a 'liberal approach to differing opinions' at all I agree. The 'approach' was not styled in reponse to 'opinions' but some ridiculous content and implied facts which were said... (which the guy then took a load back of)

Here's what he wrote to remind you (see below)... cos he agreed some of it was stupid (very good of him to put his hands up too). If you think the way I put it was 'a bit much' then fair enough, I don't, I think it was fair... all this 'appropriate maxim for the modern age' stuff? We're all different, we all communicate differently so lighten up. This isn't some 'perpetual georgian tea party' like I described earlier and if you really wanna try make out I was somehow out of order for describing it as 'daft' to think cancer might be caused by stress then I maybe I should have warned that the posting carried some kind of PG certificate.

djbarren wrote:

There is evidence that cancer and heart disease are primarily caused by stress.

STD's, in the majority, can be traced back to having sex with animals.

Most food poisoning could be avoided by following Biblical food usage, storage and consumption practices.

In my opinion disease was created by God and is spread through sin.

.....

For example, a baby can inherit AIDS from their mother, who may or may not have contracted AIDS by committing a sin. The mother could have gotten AIDS from the Husband who received AIDS from a transfusion during surgery. A sin is what started the transmission of the disease and in the case of AIDS that is well documented.

passout

You can neither prove nor disprove God - that debate is pointless. Religion, like many belief systems, is based on faith. Either you choose to believe it or you choose not to. If you demand 'proof' then you are not making decision based in faith.

So is God what you make of him or are we what God makes us? No point arguing or having a 'scientific' discussion...just go with your gut.

Personally I like Animism as expoused by an (ex) Bishop in the book 'Honest to God'. I also like the 'connectedness' of Celtic Christianity & elements of Shinto. Christ on a bike...I sound like a hipppy. I'm off!

guilliano

What happens if science proves that all religions are wrong and offers a very simply worded explaination as to the reasons? What happens if science proves that the universe is a recurring thing that is created in a lab that is incalulably bigger than the universe we inhabit, and is snuffed out in seconds in the world that created it? Like a giant CERN performing experiments...... and that our universe has existed thousands of times in this Large Hadron Collider?

Or

What happens id science proves the existence of a God? How do we then decide which religion is right? At the end of the day all religious text is created by humans to bestow their belief system on others and all are now only vaguely relevant to the world they try to influence.

Mothyman

...sounds like the debate is fizzling out...soon be time for a vote....
A. Believer
B. Disbeliever
C. Not sure

Gotte

Maybe everything's finally been said.

deptfordmarmoset

Mothyman wrote:

...sounds like the debate is fizzling out...soon be time for a vote....
A. Believer
B. Disbeliever
C. Not sure

Sunday has been going on for 6 days now. But if we get a month of Sundays, I think I'd have to tick A.

Gotte

Imagine a month of Sundays. All those club rides. I'd be knackered. Going to church would be a holiday.

rpayn93

The point about Hinduism being Polytheist and the Abrahamic religions being monotheist is an interesting one, The A R's believe that the God is an Omnipotent etc. being meaning the various Hindu Gods are basically one facet of God's Power. Talking about faith, the LHC was created with the 'faith' that it's use would result in the discovery of the Higgins Boson Particle, a sub atomic particle, atm it is purely theoretical, the scientists BELIEVE in it's existence as other wise they would not build it. The LHC is an instrument created to find something. In my opinion, religious buildings serve a similar purpose. instruments designed to help people find God

A)

Seanos

"Talking about faith, the LHC was created with the 'faith' that it's use would result in the discovery of the Higgins Boson Particle, a sub atomic particle, atm it is purely theoretical, the scientists BELIEVE in it's existence as other wise they would not build it."

Nah, that's exactly the opposite of what the LHC is all about. The objective of the Higgs Boson experiment is to determine whether or not that particular particle exists, as has been hyopthesised. The hypothesis is falsifiable.

The hypothesis that god(s) exist, as framed by believers (omnipotent supernatural entities) cannot be falsified.

deptfordmarmoset

rpayn93 wrote:

...the LHC was created with the 'faith' that it's use would result in the discovery of the Higgins Boson Particle, a sub atomic particle, atm it is purely theoretical, the scientists BELIEVE in it's existence as other wise they would not build it. The LHC is an instrument created to find something. In my opinion, religious buildings serve a similar purpose. instruments designed to help people find God

While there are many people who seem to believe in science (i.e. use it as an article of faith), you don't have to believe in something to test it, you only have to believe that you can test it. This is where science's element of self-belief is evident. If that hadron collider thingummybob disproves the boson theory, scientists can live with that, but they'll then have to come up with another theory and it'll have to be subject to testing. Science is always going to be theoretical until what you've learnt becomes usable - then we tend to call it ''technology.''

It doesn't matter too much either whether it's pure nature or god doing the making, or what its purpose is, it's about understanding how what's going on works, not why or which nutter dreamt it all up. At its purest level, science is about understanding this fantastically incomprehensible world that we have the pleasure and pain of cycling in.

mfin

I'm sure if scientists could prove or disprove the exisitence of god with a similarly resource hungry and demanding project then they would go about that too. Seems though there is no way of testing for the existence of god cos there's no real theory underneath it all to test against. No theory to investigate and no evidence to analyse.

Still noone 'religious' on here has answered what they think of other religions ...if their religion turns out to be right, what happens to all the other people following other religions? Also, do they not agree that its in their nature to become religious and this, together with which one they are exposed to, results in which they believe, not any process of logic. They have not made a choice over which religion they follow based on believing its content to be right over other versions, plus, if they do 'believe' their versions (a lot of people on here have got quite specific) then they must believe the other religions to be wrong and hence 'made up'??

frenchfighter

The insistence of non-believers to question and attack I find sad and strange - why do you have to do this? Why cannot you just let other people believe what they will without having to put them down, often in an abusive and unpleasant manner?

Those who believe do not need to prove the existence of God - the very nature of God does not require it as faith is above human proof. What people need is to ensure that the life they lead is good - if everyone did that then the whole World would be good - and if there are millions of people that use religion to help them towards being a good person then leave them be as it is of no matter to you, the only thing that should matter is that they are good.

As for people saying that religion is bad because some people do terrible acts in the name of religion, you need to understand that:

"One drop of blood does not turn the ocean red". - Ghandi (this may well not be the exact wording but it is the sense).

In other words, they are a very small minority, are deluded and are completely at odds with what God wishes.

It is the same as saying: there are so many foreigners in this country. This is purported by the media and certain people yet 92% of the population is white and from the UK. I could give many other examples.

My personal views on religion and God are not important, the points above I just thought were pertinent.

nasahapley

frenchfighter wrote:

The insistence of non-believers to question and attack I find sad and strange - why do you have to do this? Why cannot you just let other people believe what they will without having to put them down, often in an abusive and unpleasant manner?

Those who believe do not need to prove the existence of God - the very nature of God does not require it as faith is above human proof. What people need is to ensure that the life they lead is good - if everyone did that then the whole World would be good - and if there are millions of people that use religion to help them towards being a good person then leave them be as it is of no matter to you, the only thing that should matter is that they are good.

The insistence of believers that all atheists are of the militant variety I find sad and strange - why do you have to do this? You'll be glad t know that I don't give a monkeys what belief system any individual chooses to subscribe to. What gets my back up is religious types claiming a monopoly on morality and further that their particular brand of religion should attract special privileges (Bishops in the House of Lords, blasphemy laws, that type of thing). The tendency of orgainsed religion to try to enforce its own view of what is 'good' on everyone else sticks in the craw too; I agree with you that if everyone concentrated on being 'good' themselves the world would be a better place, but how much strife has been caused down the millenia by opposing religious groups having wildly differing views of what is 'good' and seeking to impose that on others?

It's not faith most of us uppity atheists have a problem with, it's organised religion, which is rather different.

mfin

Well, asking questions is the very bit i find interesting, what's wrong with that...there's no 'attack' in that... unless as a religious type you might think that asking people 'what they believe and why they believe' it is somehow unfair?

See post above asking people what their views on other religions are in the context that only one can be correct. Perfectly interesting and logical question I think, which id love to know how it fits in with the specifics of what individuals believe ...or do they not question these things?

mfin

Oh.... and do they bulk of people who aren't religious not base their lives around being good people?? I don't see any link between being a good, generous, giving, considerate person and religious beliefs at all ...these are just normal things for a lot of people.