A religious question

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Religion and Science are intended to co-exist. RichardE and I have had numerous conversations on this topic, but I will summarize my opinion on this matter.

Science is excellent and has a great track record of describing what is...not explaining how or sometimes why. For example, science knows that gravity exists and can solve many problems using it. But it doesn't know why or how objects are attracted to each other. Science will continue to get exceedingly accurate at describing the atmosphere around us; but it will will never understand our 'existance' or what is 'moral'.

This is what religion was developed for...a system of beliefs to help explain the unknowns; I don't endrose or practice religion but I do understand its purpose and I think it's great to see people seek deeper meaning. Everyone wants to be spoon fed answers and youth these days are raised studying scientific theories as if they are fact. When you reach the university level, you finally get to see how highly inaccurate these theories are; and this is describing what is...not how or why.

I believe in this day in age we are surrounded by all this impressive technology which fools us into thinking science has all the answers...when in fact it knows very little. Over time we will see science progress; but again, it will never replace the basic principles a religion will provide.

OMFGBBQ - This post explains a lot.

 

[Stunt]

How do you figure Dave?

 

[Warthog912]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
My personal opinion is that religion exists because it must. Because of the unique bicameral nature of our minds that evolution handed us, the ability to have a separate consciousness in each hemisphere of the brain and the fact that we learned to use language in the last 200 thousand years or so, we have fallen ill to a disease that is also most unique. Before language humans existed at one with the universe in perfect harmony with each moment of time. We were totally conscious but unaware that we were. With language came the capacity to abstract, to actually live in our heads. We separated from time and entered the past as all thought is of things we've experienced. Thought is of the past. Thought is fear. We were taught, once we abstracted meanings that there is something called good and evil when in fact these things do not exist. We use language to control, we make others conform by teaching them to fear the withdrawal of love and support if their behavior is evil. We were all made to hate who we were and to be what others expect us to be. We were meant to be God and were turned into the Devil and that's where all the fun of human psychosis began.

Every once in a while somebody experiences the perfection of timeless consciousness either via some deep religious practice or some other kind of rare mental shock and their understanding is radically transformed. And since nobody has much of an idea at all as to what is going on they interpret their experiences according to what they have been taught. Religion is the inevitable result of the fact that we are sick and on rare occasions get well. Naturally those who are well have an urge to help those who are sick. It is difficult for the sick however to know who is a doctor and who is a quack since everybody likes to pretend he is well.

Nice post Moon, I've never really thought of it in that perspective.

 

[piasabird]

In my Bible Footnotes it says that the root words that Create is interpreted means "To Organize".

Isnt this what a geneticist does??

Science does not always have the answers. Many a scientist has tried to say x is y only to find out that x is not y later. However, at the time they say x is y, since they supposedly are learned individuals, we are suppose to take their word for it. This is exactly how religion works in many ways. So what you want people to do is make these so-called experts into a God of their field of expertise.

I was not born yesterday, and I expect to see some proof.

Every month or so some expert or researcher announces some discover or finding based on some kind of research. Generally, they receive some big grant to conduct research. So they go and devise some research method to prove what they postulate. If they can not prove what they want through research sometimes they just make up the results, like that Geneticist in South Korea claiming to be working on Dogs. This is like the latest fad in nutrition. Often it is only fad and good for nothing.

One study will say Eggs are bad. Another study says eggs are good. It is often all a fad.

So if a scientist is cloning an animal in the way they are trying to achieve some kind of power similar to what God is suppose to have.

"And he took a Rib from Adam and cloned a companion and called her Eve."

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

The real question is whether God exists or not. Without an answer to that question why bother asking how He controls the elements?

I don't consider that a question. I already know the answer. I've moved on to better questions.

There is no reason to believe that God created us.

Such is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I, on the other hand, know there is very good reason to believe in God. But again, that's me.

The concept of God will only get weaker as science continues to unravel how the universe works.

Actually, I find the evidence produced by science to do nothing more than confirm to me that God does exist, as well as helping me to understand how it is that he does some of the things he does. Perhaps it's your understanding or perception of God that causes this problem, and not science, because what you said is true for you, not for everyone else.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I already know the answer.

Please enlighten me.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

There is no reason to believe that God created us.

Such is your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

At the risk of sounding like a pretentious prick, I argue that my statement is not an opinion but a fact. If there is no evidence for a theory then there is no reason to believe it.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I, on the other hand, know there is very good reason to believe in God. But again, that's me.

So you know there is a very good reason, yet you fail to state it?

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Actually, I find the evidence produced by science to do nothing more than confirm to me that God does exist,

The only way [that I can see] that one can conclude this is by starting out with the assumption that God exists and then creating theories based around this assumption. This is not a valid method. The proper way is to make conclusions based on what evidence suggests.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I already know the answer.

Please enlighten me.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

There is no reason to believe that God created us.

Such is your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

At the risk of sounding like a pretentious prick, I argue that my statement is not an opinion but a fact. If there is no evidence for a theory then there is no reason to believe it.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I, on the other hand, know there is very good reason to believe in God. But again, that's me.

So you know there is a very good reason, yet you fail to state it?

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Actually, I find the evidence produced by science to do nothing more than confirm to me that God does exist,

The only way [that I can see] that one can conclude this is by starting out with the assumption that God exists and then creating theories based around this assumption. This is not a valid method. The proper way is to make conclusions based on what evidence suggests.

Oh I don't know. Suppose one became a God hunter and went hunting for Him. Now supposed too you hunted him mercilessly and without pity for one's self and hunted and hunted in every church and under every rock till you had searched the entire universe and because of your pitilessness and remorseless honesty failed to find Him anywhere. Such a hunter would be stripped of every illusion that his prey existed anywhere. He would be all hunter and no hope no illusions of finding his prey. As the hunter dies to the hunt all he is not is stripped away and the hunter is left only with what can't be taken. The hunter turns inside out and becomes the hunted. He has always been hunting himself. The hunter and the hunted are one.

Whether God exists or doesn't, does not matter at all. What matters is that you become one with the hunter.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Please enlighten me.

Well, I thought it was obvious, but the answer is that he does exist. Enlightened?

At the risk of sounding like a pretentious prick, I argue that my statement is not an opinion but a fact. If there is no evidence for a theory then there is no reason to believe it.

Oh, I don't think anyone is a pretentious prick for not believing in God or for believing in something other than what I do. However, until it can be conclusively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that something does or does not exist, an agreement with either of the two is nothing more than opinion. You see the facts pointing to the idea that God does not exist, I see them pointing to him existing. As of yet, I know of no globally proven fact that proves one way or the other, so until then, it's all just opinion.

There is evidence all around that points to the existence of God, if a person so chooses to look at it in that fashion. Such evidences are also easily dismissed as pointing to something else for those who do not wish to believe in God. Consider a miracle, such as someone being healed from cancer (which I have seen). Some would look at that and say, "It's God", yet others would say, "It's not God, but merely some odd occurance that science doesn't have an answer or explanation for yet." Are both sides valid arguments? Sure. I can understand both point of views, but there is nothing to prove that one is correct and the other is not, at least not yet.

So you know there is a very good reason, yet you fail to state it?

Sure, I know there is a good reason, but forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you would interpret it the same as I would. Answers to prayers, miracles, personal revelation. They're all evidences to me, but many would call them dillusions, coincidence, or signs of a troubled mind. So do I have a problem stating the reasons? No. Do I feel like wasting my breath or having others attempt to demean me or my experiences? No. So unless I feel there is a particular reason to state such events, I keep them to myself as I consider them very special. Is there a reason you are not simply able to take my word for it?

The only way [that I can see] that one can conclude this is by starting out with the assumption that God exists and then creating theories based around this assumption. This is not a valid method. The proper way is to make conclusions based on what evidence suggests.

I tend to agree with two statements, one called Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and the second by Sherlock Holmes - once you've eliminated all possible rational explanations, the remaining explanation, no matter how unlikely or incredible, must be the correct one.

Using these two ideas, I find it very simple to believe in God, and until some form of proof exist that can disprove such a being, I plan to continue to believe in him. You may feel differently, and such is your right, but that does not make you any more correct than I am.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Was religion meant to grow alongside science?

Religion was the old version of science. It was the best means for people to explain the world around them. For a long time, much of the best thinking was done in religious circles because they were really the only ones doing any thinking at all. Then came the Enlightenment and it has become clear to most of the educated world that science is better at explaining the world around us.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: RichardE
Was religion meant to grow alongside science?

Religion was the old version of science. It was the best means for people to explain the world around them. For a long time, much of the best thinking was done in religious circles because they were really the only ones doing any thinking at all. Then came the Enlightenment and it has become clear to most of the educated world that science is better at explaining the world around us.

And what does it profit a man to know everything about the world and nothing about himself?

 

[judasmachine]

I think religion served the purpose of answering our questions when we simply didn't know any better. Now we (read half of us) aren't as naive.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
I think religion served the purpose of answering our questions when we simply didn't know any better. Now we (read half of us) aren't as naive.

Did you read this thread? We didn't know then and we don't know now.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
You see the facts pointing to the idea that God does not exist, I see them pointing to him existing.

I see no facts pointing to the idea that God does not exists. The whole theory of a supernatural being is non-falsifiable, so there will never be any evidence that a God does not exist.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
As of yet, I know of no globally proven fact that proves one way or the other, so until then, it's all just opinion.

No. The sole burden of proof lies on the people making the claim that God exists. There is nothing for anyone to disprove if you don't have a solid theory [based off of evidence] in the first place.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I tend to agree with two statements, one called Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and the second by Sherlock Holmes - once you've eliminated all possible rational explanations, the remaining explanation, no matter how unlikely or incredible, must be the correct one.

Occam's Razor does not apply here because we don't have all of the facts. Science is still progressing.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

I see no facts pointing to the idea that God does not exists. The whole theory of a supernatural being is non-falsifiable, so there will never be any evidence that a God does not exist.

That is true, just as there will never be what most would consider evidence that he does exist (aside from him appearing to them). Therefore, all ideas on God would be nothing more than the opinion of that person based upon the events of their life. It then just up to us whether or not we believe that person and their accounts.

No. The sole burden of proof lies on the people making the claim that God exists. There is nothing for anyone to disprove if you don't have a solid theory [based off of evidence] in the first place.

No, I have no burden of proof. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I tell you what I believe and you have every right to believe it or not to believe it. But my purpose is not to convince you, therefore I have no burden of proof. I'm only tell you what I believe and why I believe it.

Occam's Razor does not apply here because we don't have all of the facts. Science is still progressing.

Will we ever have all the facts? Would we ever be naive enough to believe we do? Just because we don't have all the facts doesn't mean we can't come to an educated guess, which even Occum's Razor does allow, though tries to minimize. After minimizing such assumptions, given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation. To me, that explanation is God. After making that decision, I began testing it. And since that time, I have failed to find a single instance under which that decision has not held. Therefore, until I find a circumstance that exist that would make me believe God does not exist, I have no reason to change my mind. Doesn't mean I'm not open to such ideas, but simply that I'm not going to accept other peoples ideas simply because they say that's the way it is.

I have spent a great amount of time weighing the two and determining which makes more sense and is more valid. I do not expect everyone else to come to the same conclusions I have, and there is nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't make either of us any more correct or incorrect.

 

[fitzov]

Ockham's Razor:

Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora. ["It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less"].

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: judasmachine
I think religion served the purpose of answering our questions when we simply didn't know any better. Now we (read half of us) aren't as naive.

Did you read this thread? We didn't know then and we don't know now.

Yeah, I really just failed to explain myself. My ultimate position is that we are incapable of real answers, so we go with what fits us at the time. There isn't anything wrong with either side of this argument, except that we butt heads on it.

 

[slash196]

Anyone with two eyes and a brain knows that there is no god. There's no evidence for his existence, and there's no need for him to exist at all. Belief in god is intellectually indefensible, and everyone who has tried has fallen flat on their face.

The problem with believing something for no reason other than you want to believe it is you are creating and living in a reality that is separate from the one the rest of us live in. You therefore lack the capacity to understand how the world works, because you have constructed an alternative world where everything is neat and tidy and behaves exactly the way you want it to. Sure, it's a nice little insulation from reality, but it's extremely dangerous. Not only that, but you allow others to manipulate your world according to THEIR beliefs. If your pastor says fags go to hell, even if you don't necessarily think so, that suddenly becomes part of your reality, and it doesn't matter how many reasoned arguments are put against this belief, it will stand firm because reasoned argument is not admissible as evidence in your twisted reality.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
After minimizing such assumptions, given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation.

But the "God did it" theory is not a valid explanation for anything.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
To me, that explanation is God. After making that decision, I began testing it. And since that time, I have failed to find a single instance under which that decision has not held. Therefore, until I find a circumstance that exist that would make me believe God does not exist, I have no reason to change my mind.

Theories must be supported by data, not just fit the data. I could form a theory that we are actually living in a virtual world; Our real bodies connected to computers that simulate the real world. This theory is certainly possible and nobody would be able to disprove it, however it is still not a valid theory. There is no evidence that could lead one to believe that we live in a virtual world, so it is totally irrelevant that the theory happens to be possible. This is the problem with your theory. You created a conclusion and then attempted to disprove it. This just isn't a valid way of doing things.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
Religion and Science are intended to co-exist. RichardE and I have had numerous conversations on this topic, but I will summarize my opinion on this matter.

Science is excellent and has a great track record of describing what is...not explaining how or sometimes why. For example, science knows that gravity exists and can solve many problems using it. But it doesn't know why or how objects are attracted to each other. Science will continue to get exceedingly accurate at describing the atmosphere around us; but it will will never understand our 'existance' or what is 'moral'.

This is what religion was developed for...a system of beliefs to help explain the unknowns; I don't endrose or practice religion but I do understand its purpose and I think it's great to see people seek deeper meaning. Everyone wants to be spoon fed answers and youth these days are raised studying scientific theories as if they are fact. When you reach the university level, you finally get to see how highly inaccurate these theories are; and this is describing what is...not how or why.

I believe in this day in age we are surrounded by all this impressive technology which fools us into thinking science has all the answers...when in fact it knows very little. Over time we will see science progress; but again, it will never replace the basic principles a religion will provide.

OMFGBBQ - This post explains a lot.

The problem with religion in this case is that there are many different religions, with different belief systems. There is NO validation of any kind that any of these are more "correct" than any other. Therefore, it could be postulated that the basic principles provided are all equally invalid (not valid, since they could conflict).

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: slash196
Anyone with two eyes and a brain knows that there is no god. There's no evidence for his existence, and there's no need for him to exist at all. Belief in god is intellectually indefensible, and everyone who has tried has fallen flat on their face.

The problem with believing something for no reason other than you want to believe it is you are creating and living in a reality that is separate from the one the rest of us live in. You therefore lack the capacity to understand how the world works, because you have constructed an alternative world where everything is neat and tidy and behaves exactly the way you want it to. Sure, it's a nice little insulation from reality, but it's extremely dangerous. Not only that, but you allow others to manipulate your world according to THEIR beliefs. If your pastor says fags go to hell, even if you don't necessarily think so, that suddenly becomes part of your reality, and it doesn't matter how many reasoned arguments are put against this belief, it will stand firm because reasoned argument is not admissible as evidence in your twisted reality.

Why do you assume that is the reason people believe in God?

Myself i believe in God not because what i read in a book, but what i've seen and experianced.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: slash196
Anyone with two eyes and a brain knows that there is no god. There's no evidence for his existence, and there's no need for him to exist at all. Belief in god is intellectually indefensible, and everyone who has tried has fallen flat on their face.

The problem with believing something for no reason other than you want to believe it is you are creating and living in a reality that is separate from the one the rest of us live in. You therefore lack the capacity to understand how the world works, because you have constructed an alternative world where everything is neat and tidy and behaves exactly the way you want it to. Sure, it's a nice little insulation from reality, but it's extremely dangerous. Not only that, but you allow others to manipulate your world according to THEIR beliefs. If your pastor says fags go to hell, even if you don't necessarily think so, that suddenly becomes part of your reality, and it doesn't matter how many reasoned arguments are put against this belief, it will stand firm because reasoned argument is not admissible as evidence in your twisted reality.

Why do you assume that is the reason people believe in God?

Myself i believe in God not because what i read in a book, but what i've seen and experianced.

I would guess that most people who believe in God do so because their parents do, and that was how they were taught as children.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Myself i believe in God not because what i read in a book, but what i've seen and experianced.

Emotions can be deceiving and most miracles are not too amazing when put in perspective. What evidence do you know of that has left you with the most logical conclusion being that God exists? There is not much room in a natural world for evidence of a supernatural being.

EDIT: Original phrasing sounded like I was brown-nosing

 

[Kwaipie]

Religion is the opiate of the masses - Karl Marx

The downfall comes when man tries to interpret the idea of a God to others. It is possible to have a belief in God without subscribing to imperfect religions. That religion appears at the root of so many of the world's conflicts throughout history, I choose to not participate. Take your hate with you and please close the door.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Myself i believe in God not because what i read in a book, but what i've seen and experianced.

Emotions can be deceiving and most miracles are not too amazing when put in perspective. What evidence do you know of that has left you with the most logical conclusion being that God exists? There is not much room in a natural world for evidence of a supernatural being.

EDIT: Original phrasing sounded like I was brown-nosing

Lets see i'm not poping pills to control acid reflux, haven't for years. healed, instantly.

During a church service a friend had her fillings change from standard sliver, to gold - went back to her dentists to have it verified and documented.

My wife was having medical trouble with her repoductive system, went to the doctor, had ultrasound done, and confirmed that there was mass causing the issue (and pain). Prior to going to her next appointment she got prayed for at church. At that point the pain and discomfort stopped, and on the follow up appointment the next day - the mass was gone.

Good friend of mine, chronic alcholic, got prayed for to be delived from alcohol - hasn't touched a drop since. Zero withdrawl sympthoms or side affects.

Girl i went to school with and the same church had extremely thick glasses ( proably a -5) got healed. 8 years later, still no glasses or contacts.

Those are examples i've witnessed.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: slash196
Anyone with two eyes and a brain knows that there is no god. There's no evidence for his existence, and there's no need for him to exist at all. Belief in god is intellectually indefensible, and everyone who has tried has fallen flat on their face.

The problem with believing something for no reason other than you want to believe it is you are creating and living in a reality that is separate from the one the rest of us live in. You therefore lack the capacity to understand how the world works, because you have constructed an alternative world where everything is neat and tidy and behaves exactly the way you want it to. Sure, it's a nice little insulation from reality, but it's extremely dangerous. Not only that, but you allow others to manipulate your world according to THEIR beliefs. If your pastor says fags go to hell, even if you don't necessarily think so, that suddenly becomes part of your reality, and it doesn't matter how many reasoned arguments are put against this belief, it will stand firm because reasoned argument is not admissible as evidence in your twisted reality.

So have you changed your beliefs since you made this post?

Originally posted by: slash196
I seem to be the only one who knows this, so it's time for a little lesson in Islam. It is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN to depict the Prophet in ANY WAY, be it cartoon, painting, what have you. To do so is an insult to all of Islam, and has been interpreted as such. I thought this was fairly common knowledge but apperantly it isn't.

To make an analogy, it would be like me pooping on a picture of Jesus on national television. This whole country would go (somewhat justifiably) completely insane. People would be calling for my blood. Exact same thing. The newspaper should have known this and should issue an apology for insulting, deliberately, more than a billion people. End of freaking story.