(2) Why believe? Why religion? Why no search for truth? [Archive]

Bijo

07-30-2007, 21:04

Thus it has come down to recommencing the thread due to my previous opening post which is perceived as... insulting. Mind you, I have no intention at all to insult. However, I have admitted my opening post to be slightly... unconventional and perhaps harsh to those who are receptive of irrelevant emotional influence. Call it the residue of my past Cynical nature which approaches people directly, honestly, and uncomfortably.

Bijo, if you want to discuss why people have certain beliefs then by all means try again, but avoid gratuitous insults to those who do not share your world view. Striking through an offensive attack does not suffice to moderate the insult.

You will find both proponents and opponents of faith quite willing to engage in debate, but you need to frame your discussion in the terms of respect you would expect for your own belief system.

Fact is: I have stated how religion irrationally does not support the search for truth and it rings true. What has been struck through...
and they should not be allowed to express their irrational opinions and beliefs which have the appearance of lies. ...was no attack however, but it was slightly something of a view indeed albeit loosely included -- it doesn't make it an attack. Know that I appreciate the Org and see no gain in insulting or attacking anyone of it. Furthermore, a person such as I would not resort to senseless offensives without good reason -- and I am one who dislikes and tries to a degree of extremity to avoid deliberate usage of non-reason, therefore such attacks performed by me would not occur.

I appreciate the allowance of another attempt :bow:

---

Now then, let me restate the general case in short:
The only things certain to bring truth or to at least seek it fairly are logic, befitting philosophy, clear objective thinking, science, and the likes -- not religion or any kind of irrational belief without proper support.

Saying a belief in God is irrational is irrational.
Wherefore?

You must be a messenger of satan trying to fool us all with that satanic invention called logic.
The concept of Satan is irrelevant and silly. The point is that religion is irrational, therefore it does not support the finding of certain truth.

I will exemplify this easily with the following: if you, or anyone else, believes something has occurred, no matter what, did it in fact, really, truly, certainly, occur and does your belief properly support your conclusion that this something has occurred? The only true answer is 'no'.

The concept of Satan is irrelevant and silly.In a rational, logical catholic society, you'd burn for that.
Setting logic and rationality above everything else is illogical and silly in itself.
I don't believe in the concept of universal logic.
The point remains: one's belief without proper support fails to undeniably conclude truth.

Allow me to re-exemplify with a question: if you believe your wife or girlfriend has cheated on you, does your belief make it true?

---

We are to carefully investigate matters logically, scientifically, philosophically, rationally, and so forth -- not with the utilization of mere belief which religion has been exercising as its basis. And this considers not just religion but any kind of irrational belief.

Query: why do believers who are religious maintain belief in God? One is somehow convinced that there exists a deity whom one calls God, but is there any logic in this belief? Why start believing in the first place -- the requirement of comfort? Practicality? What is it?

Observation: the fact that religious people maintain their belief in God -- and that they uphold their related devotions, etc. -- without asking serious critical questions suggests they do not care about the (related) truth nor the quest to it.

If we follow where reason directs us, the probability of locating truth is significantly elevated.

Andres

07-30-2007, 21:13

1. Do you believe logic is the only way to find "truth"?
2. Define "religion".
3. Define "truth".

Devastatin Dave

07-30-2007, 21:15

Don Corleone

07-30-2007, 21:31

You're engaging in one of the oldest syllogisms of all time Bijo. You've sat down, examined a problem, and declared what appears to be reasonable to you to be reasonable in the general sense, and the only possible answer. In fact, you've shown no more consideration of opposing viewpoints, and the fact that your personal worldview might be somewhat limited than the average funamentalist tent-revival preacher or screaming Imam.

If you truly search for reason and logic, might I pose an old philosopher's method for evaluating the reasonablness of one's position? Take the converse position as your own and assume that it is correct. Work through in your own mind the strengths and weaknesses of your argument. Only in understanding the opposition to your argument can you understand your own well enough to safely conclude that you are in fact correct in your stance.

Csargo

07-30-2007, 21:40

Faith...

Haudegen

07-30-2007, 21:45

So you don´t like religions because they don´t contribute much in the search for truth? I think that is a flawed idea.

First of all, most religions are not searching the truth, they already claim to possess the truth.

But joking aside. I think one should not expect this from a religion. A religion can be a great thing, because it can improve the life of many people. It helps them to live with fears, pain, gives them hope. Religion provides these "immaterial products". Many people "buy" them and they live well with it.

However you claim to be above emotions. I hope you are doing well with this stance, I couldn´t.

Don Corleone

07-30-2007, 21:50

1. Do you believe logic is the only way to find "truth"?
2. Define "religion".
3. Define "truth".

Well, for that matter, define reason and define logic. The word logic comes from the Greek logos which means "An idea or a precept." Everybody thinks they know that which they think they know and hence, to ourselves, everyone's own arguments seem logical. Even a madman like John Wayne Gasy thought his actions were perfectly logical. Without introspection and considering the fallibility of one's argument, the term 'logical' devolves into "I'm right because I'm right".

atheotes

07-30-2007, 21:55

Fear of death = the birth of religion.

in my opinion:
Fear of the unknown = the birth of irrational beliefs.

Most people fear darkness... we may be in a place throught the day but if we come back to the same place when it is pitch dark we are not comfortable... Our mind becomes weak and vulnerable. A similar fear is what leads us to believe in religion and such... The belief in a bigger picture and everything is controlled by a just and benevolent superpower seems to comforting and any thoughts otherwise seem to be scary.

Don Corleone

07-30-2007, 22:00

Fear of death = the birth of religion. Again this is my opinion and it might offend. Its a shame that opinions are deemed offensive. But what is "offensive" is generally based on opinion. Regardless, you cannot argue anything rational because human beings and thier beliefs are irrational. Religion provides comfort, simply put and deep down inside those who "believe" know this. Unstrap that yoke and run through the fields before you are planted in them. All hail the invisible ghost guy in the sky that will strike me down for spanking my monkey.

Are you drinking in the middle of the day? :laugh4: What you said was actually quite profound: religion is religion and faith is faith, and sometimes, when the planets happen to align just right, they actually have a little bit to do with each other. But your words, God Dave, you're the king of coffee splattered monitors... I had an image of some cartoonish happy go lucky guy skipping naked through a meadow, pulling his pud and getting hit by a bolt of lightning. :laugh4:

Husar

07-30-2007, 22:03

Allow me to re-exemplify with a question: if you believe your wife or girlfriend has cheated on you, does your belief make it true?
Allow me to re-ply with another question: If you believe your logic is more logical than mine, does that mean your logic actually is better than mine?

Xiahou

07-30-2007, 22:11

Wherefore?Oh, I can't even begin to give that one the treatment it deserves. Let's just say that logic and philosophy are inexorably linked and intertwined with the notion of a god and religion- it's far from "illogical". Most of our great philosophers believed in a god of some sort and certainly didn't think themselves hypocrites for doing so.

Kagemusha

07-30-2007, 22:15

Bijo your logig is flawed. Nothing else is absolutely true, but rather just opinions or theories,other then absolute things. And there is no other absolute things in life then death. With philosophy,meditation or learning you can construct a set of beliefs to yourself, but only time that you will face the truth is when you will face death for the last time and religions are sets of beliefs concerning that.
You can acquire knowledge as much you like, but truth is out from our reach and once it reaches us, it doesnt matter anymore.:hourglass:

HoreTore

07-30-2007, 22:34

42.

That's all I have to say.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-30-2007, 23:48

Logic is broken, it creates paradoxes, which according to the rules of logic shouldn't exist.

So logic is broken, we're missing something.

Samurai Waki

07-31-2007, 00:13

A Wise Man Knows, That he Knows Nothing at all.

Don Corleone

07-31-2007, 00:46

All we are... is dust in the wind....

All we do... is just a drop of water in an endless sea....

Strike For The South

07-31-2007, 00:50

Why waste your time worrying? Nothing will ever be 100% cold hard fact. Just enjoy the ride

Gregoshi

07-31-2007, 02:02

Why waste your time worrying? Nothing will ever be 100% cold hard fact. Just enjoy the ride
I hear you SFTS. But many people want to know if "daddy" is waiting for them after the ride is over ~:pat: or just a dead end of logic.:wall:

Whacker

07-31-2007, 03:40

The Matrix has us all. Nothing more need be said.

:balloon2:

Strike For The South

07-31-2007, 06:40

I hear you SFTS. But many people want to know if "daddy" is waiting for them after the ride is over ~:pat: or just a dead end of logic.:wall:

For every one you answer Greg there will be two that takes its place. Enjoy it and dont worry. when your time comes it comes thats how its always been and always will be. There is no need to fear or worry becuase death is just part of life

Csargo

07-31-2007, 07:42

Whatever gets you through the day.:shrug:

Strike For The South

07-31-2007, 08:10

Whatever gets you through the day.:shrug:

me?

Ronin

07-31-2007, 09:41

Religion and religious beliefs as is has already been described grows out of the fear of the unknown....mainly death....there are many things that we don´t know about about this universe we life in .... and for many people that is a troublesome thought....so they make up the pieces that are missing in order to feel safer....religion acts like a nice warm blanket and keeps the bogeyman away at night I guess.

To this you have to add the social control facet of religion....this is basically what organized religion is all about...a way that was devised long ago to keep people in line and following the rules of society back in a time were there really was no way to enforce such rules....but who needs an army to keep the peace if you can convince everyone that they better behave or some all-knowing figure is gonna kick their ass if they don´t?...this also takes care of aspect nº1 -> answers for the difficult questions in life..."no need to come to your own conclusions....it´s all explained in this handy book here"

I always thought that the biggest litmus test that you can do to ascertain if the existence of religion makes sense or not is the following one:

Imagine that you were just born...and as you grow up nobody ever tells you about religion, religion is not presented to you in any form...when you ask questions about the world people reply to you with the best of their knowledge...and if they don´t know the answer they are honest and tell you so.

would you come up with the idea of religion yourself?

I know I wouldn´t....

Fragony

07-31-2007, 11:21

Well what is the truth? Truth is that religion comforts a lot of people, I will never understand the need to harass religious people with scientific fundamentalism. They believe all that, get over it.

Sigurd

07-31-2007, 12:37

Religion and religious beliefs as is has already been described grows out of the fear of the unknown....mainly death
...

but who needs an army to keep the peace if you can convince everyone that they better behave or some all-knowing figure is gonna kick their ass if they don´t?...
...

would you come up with the idea of religion yourself?
...

Yes… I can see the reason for comforting worried tribe members, which has lost a loved one.
Yes… I can see the reason for making rules within the tribe that is self enforced with the promise of a better life after death if followed.
Yes I can see greed as a motive to enrich and empower one self by gathering followers of your particular invented belief.

But there are occasions that don’t fit with this picture.
You have people claim visitations and apparent miracles being performed.
This have been recorded and witnessed. I am thinking of the early Christians and other recently established organisations.
The early church had Judaism as the established organisation with rules and promises of a life eternal. Their book was full of testimonies from the ancient followers with appurtenant miracles. Then a man is born, with sightings of angels, a man that performed miracles and the viewers testified of them.
He organised a new movement within Judaism and established a new order, apparently foretold in every book of the ancient prophets.
His followers were doomed to die the martyrdom but promised an eternal life in the kingdom to come. There was no shock that they were destroyed, it was prophesied.

A new age and this Judaic movement becomes a world religion; a new tool for controlling a world.
Reformers do not agree on certain points and breaks off.
A time of dispute and disagreements leads to countless branches of the first. Who is right? Which one of them will ensure my life hereafter?

The second organisation I am thinking of starts with a 14 year old boy in search of truth.
He reads the bible and from the book of one of the brothers of thunder he learns a recipe for truth. Upon trying this recipe he apparently receives a visitation from the Godhead.
Wow… you say. Well, He is able to convince his entire family. Then he is repeatedly visited by angels and there are even witnesses testifying in writing that these things are true. This is not the end of it.
Heavenly visitations are recorded throughout this man’s life and ancient figures like John the Baptist, st.Peter, st.James and st.John comes and bestow lost priesthoods. Moses, Elijah and other of the powerful ancients comes and passes on their authorities. Jesus himself visits and says all is well in front of several witnesses.
Many likenesses with the early church are evident up to the martyrdom of this man. The organisation is persecuted and driven from their land, many perishes and soon find themselves in a desolate desert where they finally finds rest.

The increase in converts to this organisation can only be compared with that of the early church where thousands joined in one day. This was 150 years ago and is well documented.

I say there is reason to not be too confident in what you believe is truth… logic says you should keep the backdoor open for eventualities.

Thus says an agnostic.
Amen.

sapi

07-31-2007, 12:51

Now then, let me restate the general case in short:
The only things certain to bring truth or to at least seek it fairly are logic, befitting philosophy, clear objective thinking, science, and the likes -- not religion or any kind of irrational belief without proper support.That presupposes that truth is the true purpose of religion, and I don't believe that it is.

Much has been done in the name of god over the centuries, but it remains true that devoted practitioners of most modern world religions make it their utmost duty to do good in their community, in their country, and in this world.

Followers of religion see, in the 'truth' presented to them, a measure of finality to existence; a way to bring greater meaning and fulfilment to their lives. For the most part, they take this, and they go forth, and in their conviction they harm no one, but help themselves.

So that is religion; a tool, to be sure, but a tool that, in essence, is doing more good than harm.

So I don't think that truth is what you should be searching for; or what you are searching for.

I think that to find what you seek, sometimes you have to suspend your disbelief.

Religions are termed faiths for a reason.

NB: I'm an athiest. I believe that if god is benevolent, he will forgive me for my disbelief; that if he is malevolent, I would not want to believe; and that if he does not exist, I need not believe...but I do see the value of measured faith in other people's lives; and I do believe that there is a place for those who are sincere in the truth that they think that they have found in the modern world. Sometimes blind faith can be the only solution to a person's woes; and if that helps them, without hurting us, then there is no need to question the truth of that which is aiding them.

Ronin

07-31-2007, 12:55

Yes… I can see the reason for comforting worried tribe members, which has lost a loved one.
Yes… I can see the reason for making rules within the tribe that is self enforced with the promise of a better life after death if followed.
Yes I can see greed as a motive to enrich and empower one self by gathering followers of your particular invented belief.

But there are occasions that don’t fit with this picture.
You have people claim visitations and apparent miracles being performed.
This have been recorded and witnessed. I am thinking of the early Christians and other recently established organisations.
The early church had Judaism as the established organisation with rules and promises of a life eternal. Their book was full of testimonies from the ancient followers with appurtenant miracles. Then a man is born, with sightings of angels, a man that performed miracles and the viewers testified of them.
He organised a new movement within Judaism and established a new order, apparently foretold in every book of the ancient prophets.
His followers were doomed to die the martyrdom but promised an eternal life in the kingdom to come. There was no shock that they were destroyed, it was prophesied.

A new age and this Judaic movement becomes a world religion; a new tool for controlling a world.
Reformers do not agree on certain points and breaks off.
A time of dispute and disagreements leads to countless branches of the first. Who is right? Which one of them will ensure my life hereafter?

The second organisation I am thinking of starts with a 14 year old boy in search of truth.
He reads the bible and from the book of one of the brothers of thunder he learns a recipe for truth. Upon trying this recipe he apparently receives a visitation from the Godhead.
Wow… you say. Well, He is able to convince his entire family. Then he is repeatedly visited by angels and there are even witnesses testifying in writing that these things are true. This is not the end of it.
Heavenly visitations are recorded throughout this man’s life and ancient figures like John the Baptist, st.Peter, st.James and st.John comes and bestow lost priesthoods. Moses, Elijah and other of the powerful ancients comes and passes on their authorities. Jesus himself visits and says all is well in front of several witnesses.
Many likenesses with the early church are evident up to the martyrdom of this man. The organisation is persecuted and driven from their land, many perishes and soon find themselves in a desolate desert where they finally finds rest.

The increase in converts to this organisation can only be compared with that of the early church where thousands joined in one day. This was 150 years ago and is well documented.

I say there is reason to not be too confident in what you believe is truth… logic says you should keep the backdoor open for eventualities.

Thus says an agnostic.
Amen.

if a person comes up to you today saying that he was visited by angels and such do you form a religion around what he is saying or do you instruct him to visit a psychiatrist?

just because it happened a long time ago this doesn´t make those claims any less crazy....the only difference was they didn´t have straitjackets and padded rooms back them....go figure.

Sigurd

07-31-2007, 13:04

if a person comes up to you today saying that he was visited by angels and such do you form a religion around what he is saying or do you instruct him to visit a psychiatrist?

Well... Islam was founded in such a way.

Who knows, If I was visited by an angle... I would probably sit in a padded room, thinking: "Damn I should have kept my mouth shut".

English assassin

07-31-2007, 14:29

Why waste your time worrying? Nothing will ever be 100% cold hard fact. Just enjoy the ride

Philosophy now. It pains me to admit it, but there really is NOTHING a Texan cannot do....:2thumbsup:

To pose the question slightly differently: why does religion require faith?

Assuming god exists, I can see why he might want us to behave a certain way. (Equally, I can see why he wouldn't.) I can see he might want us to be good, or honest, or clever, or for all I know he might want us to paint our backsides blue, after all, he is God, who is to argue. But why does he want us to BELIEVE?

This qu is (c) Richard Dawkins, rather than an original assassin production, btw. But its a good qu to which I would be interested in seeing if there is an answer.

HoreTore

07-31-2007, 15:15

Well... Islam was founded in such a way.

Who knows, If I was visited by an angle... I would probably sit in a padded room, thinking: "Damn I should have kept my mouth shut".

You might just end up with Märtha Louise though...

R'as al Ghul

07-31-2007, 15:25

But why does he want us to BELIEVE?

This qu is (c) Richard Dawkins, rather than an original assassin production, btw. But its a good qu to which I would be interested in seeing if there is an answer.

Terry Pratchett might answer:

Because God would cease to exist if nobody believed in it.

:clown:

Ronin

07-31-2007, 15:35

But why does he want us to BELIEVE?

maybe he has poor self-esteem and needs an ego boost?

just throwing the idea out there.... :laugh4:

Bijo

07-31-2007, 16:07

Apologies for adjoining all these replies but it saves thread space.

You're engaging in one of the oldest syllogisms of all time Bijo. You've sat down, examined a problem, and declared what appears to be reasonable to you to be reasonable in the general sense, and the only possible answer. In fact, you've shown no more consideration of opposing viewpoints, and the fact that your personal worldview might be somewhat limited than the average funamentalist tent-revival preacher or screaming Imam.

If you truly search for reason and logic, might I pose an old philosopher's method for evaluating the reasonablness of one's position? Take the converse position as your own and assume that it is correct. Work through in your own mind the strengths and weaknesses of your argument. Only in understanding the opposition to your argument can you understand your own well enough to safely conclude that you are in fact correct in your stance.
You are incorrect and wrongly assuming I know little of the opposition and the world. You have made erroneous conclusions regarding my person.

Well, for that matter, define reason and define logic. The word logic comes from the Greek logos which means "An idea or a precept." Everybody thinks they know that which they think they know and hence, to ourselves, everyone's own arguments seem logical. Even a madman like John Wayne Gasy thought his actions were perfectly logical. Without introspection and considering the fallibility of one's argument, the term 'logical' devolves into "I'm right because I'm right".

This word λόγος you speak of is ancient, and it signifies more than just 'idea' or 'precept'. Of course, what is meant by logic in modern times is exactly just that -- logic, argumentation, and so forth, and the exclusion of irrationality such as emotion, etc.

Allow me to re-ply with another question: If you believe your logic is more logical than mine, does that mean your logic actually is better than mine?
The fact is that you have not been logical and you have not properly answered the question: does one's belief prove and support a conclusion? The answers has been, is, and remains 'no'.

(...)
Let's just say that logic and philosophy are inexorably linked and intertwined with the notion of a god and religion- it's far from "illogical". Most of our great philosophers believed in a god of some sort and certainly didn't think themselves hypocrites for doing so.
Is the second phrase an explanation to the first? In any case, "our great philosophers" are dead. We are discussing the present where religion has no place for logic and science (and it had no true place in the past either). Religion has its basis in irrational belief.

Bijo your logig is flawed. Nothing else is absolutely true, but rather just opinions or theories,other then absolute things.
If I stand and, in my hand, I hold an object behind my back out of my, and your, sight, whereafter I release it would the object not fall?

Suppose that we both see another person performing this action and we notice how the object falls. Would your disbelief of the event change the fact the object has fallen? No.

And so there exist rules of nature, of physics. And so there is logical thought. If you, or anyone else, attempts to bring forth the argument that everything is subjective, I hastily inform you now it is a futile thing to discuss.

And there is no other absolute things in life then death. With philosophy,meditation or learning you can construct a set of beliefs to yourself, but only time that you will face the truth is when you will face death for the last time and religions are sets of beliefs concerning that.
You can acquire knowledge as much you like, but truth is out from our reach and once it reaches us, it doesnt matter anymore.
Perhaps religion concerns death (among other things), but it does not facilitate removal of the main statement which is that...
The only things certain to bring truth or to at least seek it fairly are logic, befitting philosophy, clear objective thinking, science, and the likes -- not religion or any kind of irrational belief without proper support.
Religion is not fair in seeking truth, for it simply assumes an irrational position based on belief without proper support.

A Wise Man Knows, That he Knows Nothing at all.
If this is true, then you are basically stating that over the years I've become less wise.

That presupposes that truth is the true purpose of religion, and I don't believe that it is.

Actually, with my statement I did not presuppose religion is to seek truth: I only stated what I stated.

(...)

Religions are termed faiths for a reason.

True.

Kagemusha

07-31-2007, 16:47

If I stand and, in my hand, I hold an object behind my back out of my, and your, sight, whereafter I release it would the object not fall?

Suppose that we both see another person performing this action and we notice how the object falls. Would your disbelief of the event change the fact the object has fallen? No.

And so there exist rules of nature, of physics. And so there is logical thought. If you, or anyone else, attempts to bring forth the argument that everything is subjective, I hastily inform you now it is a futile thing to discuss.

So you are saying that laws of nature and physics are absolutely true? Then how come our wiews on them have changed so many times along the history? What you see as logigal thought is just your perception what is logigal. When has theory become a truth? You are claiming that mere tools to solve issues offer the answers to questions which have no answers.

Gregoshi

07-31-2007, 16:50

does one's belief prove and support a conclusion? The answers has been, is, and remains 'no'.
You are correct. However, that doesn't automatically make the conclusion a wrong one.

English assassin

07-31-2007, 17:38

And so there exist rules of nature, of physics.

There's a lot in that apparently rather innocuous statement, you know.

First, it would be more accurate to say that there exist models which fairly accurately correspond to observations we can make about the world. AFAIK we can say nothing about the reason for that correspondence, so any implication there may be in the word "rule" that nature obeys rules in the way we obey laws is not a given.

Second, we don't have a model, we have a variety of models, each of which seems to correspond fairly well to some particular subset of observations, but none of which can as yet correspond to them all. (And will that ever happen? Even if the physicists get their theory of everything, what would it mean to reconcile, say, quantum gravity with population genetics?)

And so there is logical thought

Well, yes, but isn't this rather similar to saying "there is mathematics". There is mathematics, but a problem which may be hard to solve using some mathematical techniques may be easy using others. Merely saying "There is maths" doesn;t tell me what sorts of problems are solvable using maths, nor, even if a problem is solvable in this way, which mathematical technique is best suited to solving it. In the same way logic seems unlikely to be even a universal path to truth, (and see my pun below) still less always the best way.

However, that doesn't automatically make the conclusion a wrong one.

Indeed, qv not god but Godel.

Personally, I share your view that faith amounts to believing something on insiufficient evidence, and on the whole that is to be regretted rather than celebrated. But I think it is enough to show that science, logic, maybe aspects of philosophy, embrace falsifiablity to demonstrate that they are intellectually more satisfying than any belief system that does not. I'm also with you on subjectivity, but I do have to accept that to a large degree this preference for falsifiability is a matter of taste.

Sigurd

07-31-2007, 17:51

You might just end up with Märtha Louise though...
HAH...
I forgot about that.
Yes, I should take a year at her new school. Apparently there is a course there that teaches you to make contact with angels.

Oh and for those not getting what this is all about; our Royal Highness Princess Märtha Louise has psychic abilities and can converse with angels. She and one of her likeminded have started a school for healers, readers and psychics where you can go study and learn these things.

Being true to my agnostic beliefs I should not discard this as a bunch of horse droppings. Maybe there are invisible angels here on earth around us, maybe not. If there are angels then there surely must be demons as well.
Now, how to tell the difference… was that the handshake test, Pindar?

Xiahou

07-31-2007, 18:48

Is the second phrase an explanation to the first? In any case, "our great philosophers" are dead. We are discussing the present where religion has no place for logic and science (and it had no true place in the past either). Religion has its basis in irrational belief.That's nonsense. What Socrates, Plato, Thomas Aquinas, ect. taught us of philosophy doesn't become irrelevant because they are dead.

Where's Pindar? Making these arguments isn't my forte. :clown:

IrishArmenian

07-31-2007, 20:46

Religion is not settling. It is not giving up the search for the truth, religions are merely extensions of the ongoing search.

Byzantine Mercenary

07-31-2007, 21:33

Query: why do believers who are religious maintain belief in God? One is somehow convinced that there exists a deity whom one calls God, but is there any logic in this belief? Why start believing in the first place -- the requirement of comfort? Practicality? What is it?
yes there is, everything in the universe (that we have currently discovered) has one thing in common, it was created, everything is a result of what preceded it, so the universe must surely have been created? the creator of the universe, in order to not also require a creator would have to be seperate, outside of time so that there is no before and no nessesity of having a creator, that this creator is god does not strike me as illogical

Observation: the fact that religious people maintain their belief in God -- and that they uphold their related devotions, etc. -- without asking serious critical questions suggests they do not care about the (related) truth nor the quest to it.
i ask serious critical questions of my religion

Seamus Fermanagh

08-01-2007, 05:21

"...Let me paraphrase. No, that would take too long. Let me eh-sum up."

Bijo, you appear to be arguing that:

It is irrational to believe in something for which there is no proof or for which no logical hypotheses, grounded in proof, may be derived. In short, that science works because we can test and evaluate our understanding based on observations and measurements. Logic works, because it makes reasonable extrapolations from known facts and does not attempt to provide an answer without such a grounded basis. Religion, therefore, which takes faith in some higher power as a given -- a given for which no factual proof exists -- is nothing but an irrationality.

Is this an accurate summary?

If so, I can only answer -- using the tools you have left me since you deny me my faith in the very set up of your intellectual exercise (how kind of you :shame: ) -- that my belief is irrational and unproveable and that if you are correct that all religions that ever were and are now are fictions designed as pap for a species that evolved too far, became self aware, and is pissed off that we have to die -- so we invented the rest to minimize the screaming meemies.

BTW, since pretty much all of society beyond the hunter/forager level has derived, at least indirectly, from a belief in existence beyond this mortal coil, a general acceptence of your view would lead to cultural breakdown on a massive scale. After all, aside from pleasing myself in the short time I have left, what would be the point? And don't give me claptrap about helping the species, laissez-faire, or leaving a better world for my children -- I'll be dead and just won't give a rat's ass, so its ME, ME, ME and to blazes with the rest of you. :devilish:

However, I do not believe that science can or will explain all things in time. I do not view logic as anything aside from a tool (and all tools have their limitations). I find the thought of a universe existing ab initio even less "logical" than a universe evoked by a non-physical entity. I do not view science or logic as the antithesis of religion.

You can go on and comfort yourself with the knowledge that I'm being irrational. If you are right, we'll both end up the same place in the end. If I am right, well.........

Marshal Murat

08-01-2007, 05:42

What about Buddhism?

Papewaio

08-01-2007, 06:48

I'll be dead and just won't give a rat's ass, so its ME, ME, ME and to blazes with the rest of you. :devilish:

You can go on and comfort yourself with the knowledge that I'm being irrational. If you are right, we'll both end up the same place in the end. If I am right, well.........

If you're right and you are doing it for ME ME ME and not for God God God... then you both might end up in the same place... along with this moderator for being too complacent about the whole matter... at least I like a good BBQ. :laugh4:

Ronin

08-01-2007, 10:06

After all, aside from pleasing myself in the short time I have left, what would be the point? And don't give me claptrap about helping the species, laissez-faire, or leaving a better world for my children -- I'll be dead and just won't give a rat's ass, so its ME, ME, ME and to blazes with the rest of you. :devilish:

but isn´t that how it is already?

the only point there is in life is having a good time while you are here....

now of course based on this you could say "blazes to all of this" and go live in a deserted island....but isn´t life much more fun and therefore pleasurable with human interaction and a few toys (cars, boats..etc)...well you have to work for those...

and as far as children go....children are an investment you make in your own future well-being....so I have children and take care of them so that when I´m older they´ll take care of ME ME ME....like you pointed out :sweatdrop:

of course people don´t make the decision to have children by consciously thinking "hey i´ll have the little bugger so that we´ll take care of me latter on"....but in the course of our evolution our biological and emotional profile has assured that this is what every generation does over and over.

and yes....once you´re dead you won´t give a rats ass about anything

Bijo

08-01-2007, 16:35

So you are saying that laws of nature and physics are absolutely true? Then how come our wiews on them have changed so many times along the history?
Due to the fact objective truth (contextually laws of nature) and proper observation might differ. It leads to conclude the observations you speak of have been incorrect. The point made has not been negated. And part of the point is that science, logic, etc., fairly seek truth.

You are correct. However, that doesn't automatically make the conclusion a wrong one.
That would be incorrect, though I understand what you mean.

A conclusion is to follow after sufficient related proper data has been assembled. If this has not occurred there is to be no conclusion and the "so-called conclusion" religion makes is not well-founded... it is no conclusion; it is merely a belief.

Well, yes, but isn't this rather similar to saying "there is mathematics". There is mathematics, but a problem which may be hard to solve using some mathematical techniques may be easy using others. Merely saying "There is maths" doesn;t tell me what sorts of problems are solvable using maths, nor, even if a problem is solvable in this way, which mathematical technique is best suited to solving it. In the same way logic seems unlikely to be even a universal path to truth, (and see my pun below) still less always the best way.
The main point remains intact: logic, science, philosophy, fairly seek truth.

To address the quote of your words more: the comparison or analogy you make is rather... dissatisfying. Math has its purpose, true, but why address math and then apply your finding of it to logic? Logic concerns reason, clear thinking, has been used in philosophy, science, and it concerns argumentation (in language and such). The appliance of your findings regarding math to logic is, I would say, fallacious.

[text]
You haven't answered the question.

Observation: first you mention the old philosophers' belief in God, as if to support its foregoing statement that philosophy, logic and religion are so connected. Then you somehow change your statement as if to replace the previous one. And you call for aid by Pindar.

I would dare say you act fallaciously.

yes there is, everything in the universe (that we have currently discovered) has one thing in common, it was created, everything is a result of what preceded it, so the universe must surely have been created? the creator of the universe, in order to not also require a creator would have to be seperate, outside of time so that there is no before and no nessesity of having a creator, that this creator is god does not strike me as illogical
It boils down to nature, physics, and the likes. There is more chance to explain things properly with science and such than with religion.

Bijo, you appear to be arguing that:

It is irrational to believe in something for which there is no proof or for which no logical hypotheses, grounded in proof, may be derived. In short, that science works because we can test and evaluate our understanding based on observations and measurements. Logic works, because it makes reasonable extrapolations from known facts and does not attempt to provide an answer without such a grounded basis. Religion, therefore, which takes faith in some higher power as a given -- a given for which no factual proof exists -- is nothing but an irrationality.

Is this an accurate summary?
That is more or less a summation indeed.

What about Buddhism?
That is a good question. I do not have the availability to properly respond now, so perhaps later. In the meanwhile, perhaps someone else is able to?

Haudegen

08-01-2007, 21:11

yes there is, everything in the universe (that we have currently discovered) has one thing in common, it was created, everything is a result of what preceded it, so the universe must surely have been created? the creator of the universe, in order to not also require a creator would have to be seperate, outside of time so that there is no before and no nessesity of having a creator, that this creator is god does not strike me as illogical

It boils down to nature, physics, and the likes. There is more chance to explain things properly with science and such than with religion.

I´ll paraphrase my favourite astrophysicist again: There is ABSOLUTELY no way for scientists to find out what happened before the creation of the universe (=big bang), neither by observation nor by theories. But your faith in science is remarkable ~;)

Incongruous

08-01-2007, 22:31

Byzantine Mercenary

08-01-2007, 23:18

It boils down to nature, physics, and the likes. There is more chance to explain things properly with science and such than with religion.

The two are not mutually exclusive, what im realy trying to say is that the universe has a necessesity for a creator, this does not mean that such a creator would have to be god as we know god off this alone, but it does show that belief in god is definately not illogical.

Bijo

08-01-2007, 23:44

I´ll paraphrase my favourite astrophysicist again: There is ABSOLUTELY no way for scientists to find out what happened before the creation of the universe (=big bang), neither by observation nor by theories. But your faith in science is remarkable ~;)
"There is more chance to explain things properly with science and such than with religion."

That was the statement you responded to. Where and how have you proved this statement erroneous? I will answer for you: nowhere.

AntiochusIII

08-02-2007, 00:54

Bijo, aren't you on a Crusade with this? :brakelamp:

I mean, com'on, you're pulling a Dawkins here.

Oh, and about Buddhism. I don't see anything special here. After all, its conception was essentially as a spin-off anti-mainstream movement against the existing Brahmic social order; think Bohemian, in a way. When it grew into a full-blown religion on its own it borrowed very heavily from Hindu/Brahmin mythical tradition or in case of the Far East from local superstitions. While Westerners apparently take some fancy to the underlying philosophies in reality the religion is practiced like any other, with prayers and superstitions among the masses and a priestly (monk, actually) class.

I do admit I like the central idea though: anti-caste, anti-slavery, anti-ancient world oppressive social order is, to me, a step in a very right direction. Buddha ftw. And he's got like, the best manga ever, to tell his story too. Can't say that for Raptor Jesus.

Incongruous

08-02-2007, 02:24

Gregoshi

08-02-2007, 02:31

The REAL...Proof of the non-existence of God (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcncPpQ8loA)

Haudegen

08-02-2007, 05:34

"There is more chance to explain things properly with science and such than with religion."

That was the statement you responded to. Where and how have you proved this statement erroneous? I will answer for you: nowhere.

So chances of science are = 0 %. And you claim that this has to be a better chance than that of religion, wherefore its chances have to be < 0 %. Sorry that doesn´t make much sense.

Husar

08-02-2007, 10:40

The REAL...Proof of the non-existence of God (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcncPpQ8loA)
:laugh4:

"Proof" of the opposite (http://www.thepaincomics.com/Science%20vs.%20Norse.jpg).
Warning, contains graphical violence.

Banquo's Ghost

08-02-2007, 13:43

:laugh4:

"Proof" of the opposite (http://www.thepaincomics.com/Science%20vs.%20Norse.jpg).
Warning, contains graphical violence.

:study:

The Norse version of the birth of man has the singular advantage of neatly explaining why most men are thick as two short planks.

Bijo

08-02-2007, 14:41

So chances of science are = 0 %. And you claim that this has to be a better chance than that of religion, wherefore its chances have to be < 0 %. Sorry that doesn´t make much sense.
Reread the statement, think, and discover how your previous response, and the one I quote here above, has no merit in (relevantly) nullifying it, nor countering it. The statement remains true, and I see no gain in even continuing our discussion.

You conveniently take a position responding to and so irrelevant to my statement I mentioned as if to undeniably claim your right and my wrong. Fallacy. Your argument is unsound, and the fact of quoting a certain authority is fallacious and invalid as well. (I dare say I possibly detect a certain amount of irrelevant pathos.)

Unless you (can) properly negate the relevant points and statements made (to which you have responded), cessation is to further attend our disussion.

Fragony

08-02-2007, 14:48

Reread the statement, think, and discover how your previous response, and the one I quote here above, has no merit in (relevantly) nullifying it, nor countering it. The statement remains true, and I see no gain in even continuing our discussion.

You conveniently take a position responding to and so irrelevant to my statement I mentioned as if to undeniably claim your right and my wrong. Fallacy. Your argument is unsound, and the fact of quoting a certain authority is fallacious and invalid as well. (I dare say I possibly detect a certain amount of irrelevant pathos.)

Unless you (can) properly negate the relevant points and statements made (to which you have responded), cessation is to further attend our disussion.

Sir you suck would have been sufficient :dizzy2:

Haudegen

08-02-2007, 15:30

Gregoshi

08-02-2007, 17:26

This thread reminds me of this classic Monty Python sketch: World Forum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr1ot7FN4AI) (it actually starts around the 1:00 minute mark)

Bijo

08-02-2007, 21:15

Yesterday evening I seized my years old bible lying about. I opened the thing and attempted to read some pages. Within not even a few minutes I closed the book, proceeded to descend, found myself outside, and commenced construction of a concrete box in my garden. I then placed the book in it and sealed off the top.

How exactly was my performance of this? I simply used magic of course. I waved my hand and thought powerfully to create out of nothing these materials. I even -- for show -- instead of placing the book by physical touch of my hands used my distant powers to elevate the object and have it afloat in the air, dance around, turn some pages, whereafter I had it land powerfully in the space the concrete structure provided.

I cannot prove it, but you will simply have to believe me. It is the truth, really.
[/critical]

"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and Earth..."
That phrase... it was after this one that I could hardly bear continue reading.

Byzantine Mercenary

08-02-2007, 22:16

"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and Earth..."
That phrase... it was after this one that I could hardly bear continue reading.
ok then, so what no creator?

no creator = no creation

surely everything is made...

(didn't want to get rid of your bible then)

Gregoshi

08-02-2007, 23:18

Bijo-ism: God exists...only in the dictionary. But then God does exist?! :sweatdrop:

There He/She is --> :book:

~:pat: Sorry, just having a little fun.

Incongruous

08-03-2007, 00:43

Sigurd

08-03-2007, 08:02

Yesterday evening I seized my years old bible lying about. I opened the thing and attempted to read some pages. Within not even a few minutes I closed the book, proceeded to descend, found myself outside, and commenced construction of a concrete box in my garden. I then placed the book in it and sealed off the top.

How exactly was my performance of this? I simply used magic of course. I waved my hand and thought powerfully to create out of nothing these materials. I even -- for show -- instead of placing the book by physical touch of my hands used my distant powers to elevate the object and have it afloat in the air, dance around, turn some pages, whereafter I had it land powerfully in the space the concrete structure provided.

I cannot prove it, but you will simply have to believe me. It is the truth, really.

There is the proof. He is possessed by evil spirits.
He opens the good book which burns him and he uses his demon powers to get rid of it.

For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. (Rev 16:14)
:beam:

Andres

08-03-2007, 08:44

does one's belief prove and support a conclusion? The answers has been, is, and remains 'no'.

You are correct. However, that doesn't automatically make the conclusion a wrong one.

That would be incorrect, though I understand what you mean.

A conclusion is to follow after sufficient related proper data has been assembled. If this has not occurred there is to be no conclusion and the "so-called conclusion" religion makes is not well-founded... it is no conclusion; it is merely a belief.

What if I conclude, based on a relgion, a belief system, that I should follow the example of the founder of my religion, i.e. caring and loving for other beings, helping them out when in need, feeling compassion, etc etc.

If everybody would conclude this, based on a religion or belief system, this would lead to a world without war or conflicts, wouldn't it?

The premises leading to this conclusion are not "sufficient" as you call it, but would the conclusion to live my life as described before a wrong one? Based on logic, one could argue that a continuous world wide state of peace will bring the most benefits for mankind, but if believing, religion would lead to the same result, would that result become wrong, just because it is based on belief or religion?

Basically, I'm saying : if religion leads to the same conclusion/result as logic and common sense would lead us to, would it be a wrong conclusion?

Banquo's Ghost

08-03-2007, 10:00

This seems to be a good place to wonder publicly about an issue that has intrigued me ever since my first degree (in science).

If we have a faith, it is often derived from upbringing based around received information (a holy scripture) and bolstered (or originally fired) by personal revelation.

On a personal level then, isn't the same true of science?

What do I mean? Well, as I trained in biology, I was given a great deal of information based on the work of previous scholars. All of this I was invited to take on trust - faith - because the conventional wisdom of my peers was that it had been proven.

Now, in some cases, I was invited to conduct experiments to demonstrate this learning. Several of these led to a personal revelation that what I was doing did indeed have a strong basis in reality - causing me to have much greater faith in what I had been told.

Nonetheless, despite my faith in the scientific method it is surely still that - a leap of belief that most of what has gone before is largely correct, or at least subject to test.

I have not gone out and conducted every experiment that has ever been devised to check the authenticity of the claims. Whereas I am passably familiar with many sciences, there are many fields where immense hoaxes may have been perpetrated without my knowledge. The only people I can rely on to expose these hoaxes are scientists themselves - in a similar manner to how I rely on my priest as an interlocutor between myself and scripture. Now, in both cases I can take this responsibility upon myself but usually we rely on men of learning to do this under our own critical gaze.

Because I have not done every prior experiment in person (and it can be argued, this is simply not possible thus demolishing the defensive mantra that scientific facts are testable - not by me, they ain't) I have to take science on faith, supported by my own personal revelations which confirm the truth of that belief - at least so far. This is not so different from my religious experience.

I offer this as a personal reflection, because we are tending towards absolute claims in the thread, and I can't see how anyone can make such claims about either side.

Life in general seems to me to be a matter of faith, and the Truth, elusive at best.

Ronin

08-03-2007, 10:20

Banquo's Ghost

08-03-2007, 10:56

that´s like me saying that the existence of the country of Japan on the other side of the world is a matter of faith because I´ve never been there personally....the entire world could be putting me on.......everything I know and have seen on TV and in literature about Japan can be an elaborate hoax perpetrated for some unknown reason....and all you guys are in on it aren´t you!!?!?!?!?!?! ADMIT IT!!!!:laugh4:

If you have never been there, you are relying entirely on other people's testimony. Whereas you might then say the number of reliable witnesses gives you strong grounds for believing Japan exists, the same could be said of religious faith - where the majority of human beings have, or have had, some sort of belief in a deity.

give me a break....

:shrug: I'm not trying to be obtuse, merely thinking aloud. I'm not proposing that there is a conspiracy, but like chinese whispers, received wisdom can contain flaws that become certainties. Science usually corrects these eventually, but in the meantime, we're all being bled for humour.

So I like to test my assumptions, and don't have your evident certainties.

science can be tested....the fact that we don´t bother to test every single experiment by ourself does not take away from the fact that you could if you set your mind to it.

Why doesn't it? I submit again that it is simply not possible to personally test every hypothesis - where am I going to get a particle accelerator, for example, to test the current theories of matter? I'm reasonably bright, but I don't have the mathematical skills to analyse the equations proposed. The theories have a strong resonance with what I know, and I am satisfied that previous work has been thought through - but I am still going on faith because I can't prove it myself.

Papewaio

08-03-2007, 10:57

What do I mean? Well, as I trained in biology, I was given a great deal of information based on the work of previous scholars. All of this I was invited to take on trust - faith - because the conventional wisdom of my peers was that it had been proven.

Doing a Physics degree our profs said the main thing they were trying to instill in us is WHY? Ask the question and keep asking it until you are satisfied. So I have to say I wasn't taught just to accept something at face value.

Now, in some cases, I was invited to conduct experiments to demonstrate this learning. Several of these led to a personal revelation that what I was doing did indeed have a strong basis in reality - causing me to have much greater faith in what I had been told.

Nonetheless, despite my faith in the scientific method it is surely still that - a leap of belief that most of what has gone before is largely correct, or at least subject to test.

Yes and no. Yes you can rely that what went on before was largely correct. No you should not take it as an article of faith or an absolute.

I have not gone out and conducted every experiment that has ever been devised to check the authenticity of the claims. Whereas I am passably familiar with many sciences, there are many fields where immense hoaxes may have been perpetrated without my knowledge. The only people I can rely on to expose these hoaxes are scientists themselves - in a similar manner to how I rely on my priest as an interlocutor between myself and scripture. Now, in both cases I can take this responsibility upon myself but usually we rely on men of learning to do this under our own critical gaze.

Considering the glee with which scientists prove each other wrong (including sometimes the person whose pet theory has just been made into dust), I feel a bit safer that they are quite happy to publish that something is a hoax... look at cold fusion for instance. Peer review is a very powerful thing. It's not like a scientist will cover up a theory and tell the one who is wrong to say 100 Einsteins and take a couple of first years for the headache caused.

Transparency is a wonderful thing. Those who seek the truth tend to be happily sarcastic to each other.

Because I have not done every prior experiment in person (and it can be argued, this is simply not possible thus demolishing the defensive mantra that scientific facts are testable - not by me, they ain't) I have to take science on faith, supported by my own personal revelations which confirm the truth of that belief - at least so far. This is not so different from my religious experience.

But a) You can test whatever you want.
b) You can rewarded in some shape or form (kudos, money, peer jealousy) for disproving a theorem.

You cannot just become a mystic and converse with god and it will happen. And you will have you keys to the club removed if you did somehow as a priest to try and disprove a central tenant... successful heretics don't last long in priestly orders, while they get promoted in scientific ones.

I offer this as a personal reflection, because we are tending towards absolute claims in the thread, and I can't see how anyone can make such claims about either side.

Life in general seems to me to be a matter of faith, and the Truth, elusive at best.

Science is not science if it is making statements of absolutes... if a theory cannot be disproven it is no longer in the realm of science.

Byzantine Mercenary

08-03-2007, 11:00

i think Banquo's Ghost makes a very good point, indeed im sure there are some scientists (by far not the magority of course) that hold ridiculous beliefs on shaky grounds and havn't tested them properrly, and there have been charlatans. Religion has had the same problem of course (i claim no superiority over science, indeed i am strongly interested in science and disslike any suggestion that as a religious person i wouldn't be) i think it is important to not judge the validity of religion off of the charlatans and those that hold their faith on shaky grounds, it says nothing for the overall logic of religion.

also you still havnt ansered my question Bijo

''ok then, so what no creator?''

Rodion Romanovich

08-03-2007, 11:06

Why believe? Why religion? Why no search for truth?
The difference between religion and a general search for truth is that religion is a less general type of search for the truth, in which some parts of the truth, and the method of searching, are to a great extent predefined. A general search for the truth, on the other hand, would include evaluation of methods of searching for the truth, as well as finding the truth through such methods. Science is a hybrid somewhere in between these two - it has a half-fixed methodology, but few ideas (in the ideal case no ideas at all) taken to be absolutely true if a methodology (that is considered valid by enough people) disproves something that was previously stated as true.

Husar

08-03-2007, 11:18

You can also test religion, you can follow it until death or you can just kill yourself now and see what happens. The only problem is that you cannot tell anyone about your findings. Then again, people who follow religions claim that they already found things but noone believes them. Then again there are scientists who claim that global warming happens and there are those who say it doesn't.

While I'm still wondering who put that huge amount of energy into a huge amount of nothing in no amount of time just before/at the same time of(even though time might not have existed, funny ain't it?) the big bang. To be honest, the origin of life is so unsure to me that I mostly stopped caring about it. And if there is a God, which I do still believe, then who created him?
And why should I care? I'm here and now and that's what matters. And like others said, science has a lot to do with creating models to explain observations, it's questionable whether there is any absolute truth in these models.

For example I know that gravity is a force between two masses, but I also know that to sustain a force one needs energy, so where does gravity draw it's energy from? and if it draws energy from somewhere, shouldn't this energy be depleted someday?
That are actually honest questions, so please don't read any rhetoric into them. ~:)

This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc) I find very intriguing as well, shows that our models are not absolute truth.

I'm interested in science to some degree but I never found it disproves God, one could say it just explores the rules God has created, but that is a matter of belief again.

My :2cents:

Rodion Romanovich

08-03-2007, 11:25

The IMO most valid and interesting scientific-philosophical arguments against God are in the following classes:

1. God's properties are a logical contradiction, so he can't hold all of them at the same time. There are various arguments which have this as their conclusion. It suggests that the set of properties of God either is incorrect, or it varies slightly over time, or he has an entire list of properties with priorities and when not all can be satisfied he chooses the most prioritized first, or that God doesn't exist, or any other alternative compatible with the fact that the list of God's properties contains contradictions.

2. "God" is a concept that refers to many phenomenons. There is no good reason to bunch these concepts together into a single concept, since they have little in common - in fact nobody can demonstrate that there's any common denominator between these concepts. Some of the phenomenons can be observed, others not, and still others can be disproven. To bunch them together into a single concept to let the observed phenomenons try to prove the existence of the disproven or non-observed ones, is not valid scientific methodology or logic - all phenomena must be separately either proven to exist or shown not to be possible to disprove before belief in the entire set of phenomenons is no longer contrary to logic. Alternatively, if it is to be rational to claim to have knowledge of these phenomena or have proven God's existence, all phenomena must be proven to exist - that they can't be disproven is not sufficient for a proof.

These arguments don't necessarily disprove God, but suggests some guidelines for belief that makes belief compatible with science and logic, and those who understand the reasoning behind them have also proven they have a good philosophical maturity.

Sigurd

08-03-2007, 11:40

... if a theory cannot be disproven it is no longer in the realm of science.
That, right there, is a great statement. I have heard it before but it is still great.

Whenever I read threads like these where there is an obvious stand off between Religion and Science I get a little fandenivolsk (devil-may-care?) and usually I take the side of Religion.
I have not attacked Bijo for his attempts at using methods belonging to the scientific realm to disprove religion because it demands a little insight in the methods and their use. There are members on this forum that is better than me at this.
Instead I make tongue-in-cheek replies.

Bijo is claiming that religion or a belief in God is irrational, but has not demonstrated logically how this is so. If I remember it right (it has been a while since school), a logical statement is rational as long as its logic is valid.
Pindar did show by using valid logic that there is a God; hence his logic is rational and not irrational.

Rodion Romanovich

08-03-2007, 12:01

if a theory cannot be disproven it is no longer in the realm of science

That, right there, is a great statement. I have heard it before but it is still great.

Whenever I read threads like these where there is an obvious stand off between Religion and Science I get a little fandenivolsk (devil-may-care?) and usually I take the side of Religion.

I think you misunderstood Papewaio's comment. A scientific theory should be possible to disprove in the case that it is incorrect, otherwise it does not belong within science. However, if it is correct, it should obviously be impossible to disprove it, but there should exist a method through which it could be disproven in the case that it was incorrect. To illustrate the difference:

- Scientific theory: Global warming will continue in the coming 5 years.
- Method of disproving it: by using a thermometer that calculates average temperatures for a year over the coming period of 5 years, we can disprove it, in the case that it is incorrect. However, if we did not have good motivations through models for making the claim, we would not make it. Science is careful in making claims, so that only theories with high probability of being correct will pass all layers of scrutiny in the publishing process.

- Non-scientific theory: murder is caused by fear
- Method of disproving it: it can't be disproven, because fear is an internal property of a human being, which we therefore have difficulties in measuring. If a murder occurs, we may not even catch the murderer. If we do catch him, the theory states that fear occurs before murder, and therefore measuring it afterwards is of little use. This claim is therefore not a scientific theory, but a philosophical theory. That it isn't scientific doesn't mean it's not correct, it only means that we don't consider it to live up to the requirements on proof burden needed to call it science. Many people may be satisfied with the argument that fuzzy statistics, interviews and other methods often can demonstrate that some form of fear and frustration occured shortly before most if not all murders.

- Non-scientific theory: God exists
- Method of disproving it: God isn't a clearly defined concept, therefore nobody has a fair chance of disproving it (or proving it either for that matter). Therefore the existence or non-existence of God is not endorsed by science and logic. Additionally, science would oppose of bunching together so many unrelated phenomena into a single concept: a phenomenon that punishes evil, bunched together with creation of the universe, and an indentity-less voice speaking to random characters of futile historical impact in Genesis but not to important characters later in history makes no sense, for instance.

Sigurd

08-03-2007, 12:20

I think you misunderstood Papewaio's comment.
I did understand it correctly and didn't really comment on it any further than with my statement:
It is a great statement.

this is the statement that I had heard before:
A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm of science.

I didn't read your recent reply until after I posted mine.
You have valid arguments there.

But consider this:
If you can both "prove" and "disprove" God using valid logic, then logic or philosophy is probably not the right "methodology" to use in adressing God or Religion.

Rodion Romanovich

08-03-2007, 12:31

Ok!

But consider this:
If you can both "prove" and "disprove" God using valid logic, then logic or philosophy is probably not the right methodology to use in adressing God or Religion.
Yes, that is a good observation, but only a half truth. The problem is that the arguments for or against God use different definitions of God and therefore arrive at different conclusions - that isn't strictly scientific methodology. The arguments for God usually prove the existence of something with only a subset of the properties of God. The arguments against God use the full set of properties of God or the union of this set and a set of properties that some teologists don't agree are part of the God concept. Both sides also add assumptions which not all people can agree to since they haven't been proven or validly argumented for, like "the universe has not existed forever". That people refuse to agree to a single definition of God and don't bother motivating any of the assumptions they just take to be true without any justification, is a quite good indication that neither side is making a serious attempt at using logic, but only an attempt at finding a half-correct shroud of abusively used logic to hide their own 100% subjective political opinions behind, i.e. the way logic is used by lawmen and journalists, not the way it's used by scientists.

In conclusion, I therefore agree that logic is impossible to use to prove anything within a field where the word definitions, facts and assumptions are fuzzy, subject to disagreements, and already beforehand taken to be either true or false, no matter what application of logic and scientific methodology will demonstrate. Logic shows that in the case the universe hasn't existed forever, it must somehow have been created, and that "somehow" can be labelled by the word "God", which then obviously exists, but it doesn't necessarily have the property that it is good, allmighty, or anything of that sort. Logic also shows that a God that is both perfectly allmighty, intervening in human life, and supporting of good, can't exist because the world is evil and we thus have a contradiction, but this argument doesn't rule out the possibility that one or more of these properties are incorrectly stated, or they are ordered in priorities, where the most highly prioritized policy is followed in case the policies conflict with each other.

Bijo

08-03-2007, 12:56

Perhaps, you might be willing to step down from you're mountain of intellegence and grace us lesser non-logicians with an explanation?
Well for me at least.:2thumbsup:
Please..
I am hesitant in elucidating it to you, for I vaguely recall you are a student of law which automatically renders you suspicious in situations of debate :saint:

Simple explanation:

"There is more chance to explain things properly with science and such than with religion."
Replies to it were
"I´ll paraphrase my favourite astrophysicist again: There is ABSOLUTELY no way for scientists to find out what happened before the creation of the universe (=big bang), neither by observation nor by theories. But your faith in science is remarkable." and
"So chances of science are = 0 %. And you claim that this has to be a better chance than that of religion, wherefore its chances have to be < 0 %. Sorry that doesn´t make much sense."

How do these two statements facilitate the proper removal of "There is more chance to explain things properly with science and such than with religion." ? They don't. There is still more chance to explain things properly with science than with religion.

What if I conclude, based on a relgion, a belief system, that I should follow the example of the founder of my religion, i.e. caring and loving for other beings, helping them out when in need, feeling compassion, etc etc.

If everybody would conclude this, based on a religion or belief system, this would lead to a world without war or conflicts, wouldn't it?

The premises leading to this conclusion are not "sufficient" as you call it, but would the conclusion to live my life as described before a wrong one? Based on logic, one could argue that a continuous world wide state of peace will bring the most benefits for mankind, but if believing, religion would lead to the same result, would that result become wrong, just because it is based on belief or religion?

Basically, I'm saying : if religion leads to the same conclusion/result as logic and common sense would lead us to, would it be a wrong conclusion?
You are tricky, Andres. Of course, I expected this from you ;)

I could go into detail, but I will spare this and go forth in the easier shorter manner. You conveniently use 'conclusion' and 'result' as if they are the same. You also use a case that does not address the question of the existence of God and whether religion is fair in seeking truth (and your case suspiciously approximates my wish for peace, which would possibly near a pathos argument/manner or generally an argument which could weaken my personal position).

We gather data, test it, analyze it, gather, discover, facts, etc., and if we properly can we make valid conclusions or we continue investigation. That is more or less the way. This is fair.

"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and Earth..."
That phrase... it was after this one that I could hardly bear continue reading.
ok then, so what no creator?

no creator = no creation

surely everything is made...

(didn't want to get rid of your bible then)
Still, the point that science, logic, philosophy, etc., fairly seek truth remains.

Papewaio

08-03-2007, 13:20

A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm of science.

Maybe one day science will know everything, apart from making life damn boring for scientists ...what does an explorer do once everything has been explored?...

Science is essentially an exploration of the world. Now if something cannot be tested it is not able to be explored.

It I imagine goes further, A hypothesis or theory which cannot be tested by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm of science.

The caveat being that in the future a hypothesis that is not currently testable could become so and hence enter the realm of science... string theory would be one of these candidates.

Not all truth is bounded by science, just that which can be tested... that is a limit on what is in the physical world and what we can measure within it... we are somewhat circumscribed by our technology in what is science.

Sigurd

08-03-2007, 13:26

Agreed...

But let me postulate a shocker:

Maybe one day science will know everything, apart from making life damn boring for scientists ...what does an explorer do once everything has been explored?...

He/She becomes [a] God.

naut

08-03-2007, 14:38

To continue from Pape's post, (well kind-of).

If science can tell you how, can it tell you why?

So if religions are the "truth" and all that is shall be, how shall we imagine what we in principal cannot imagine?

We are worth no more than our imagination, because for anything to be we must first imagine it, then will it, then create it. So to imagine is the first stage to progress and logical science.

And finally people are worthless, so therefore no judge is worthy. And the conclusion of a person will never be right, because rules are a construct of the third dimension spaced over the fourth dimension, time.

Byzantine Mercenary

08-03-2007, 18:59

Still, the point that science, logic, philosophy, etc., fairly seek truth remains.
yep, im not anti science, im pro science like i said, but science does not disprove god .

The observation that i have expressed is not so much a religious one either, the need for a creator allows belief in god as a valid solution to this problem, it doesn't prove it (I wouldn't claim it does) but the existance of god is a good anser to me and is perfectly logical (the aspects of this god are a different debate).

Innocentius

08-03-2007, 20:05

but the existance of god is a good anser to me and is perfectly logical (the aspects of this god are a different debate).

How is the "existance" of an abstract god logical?

atheotes

08-03-2007, 20:10

yep, im not anti science, im pro science like i said, but science does not disprove god .

The observation that i have expressed is not so much a religious one either, the need for a creator allows belief in god as a valid solution to this problem, it doesn't prove it (I wouldn't claim it does) but the existance of god is a good anser to me and is perfectly logical (the aspects of this god are a different debate).

Science does not disprove a lot of things.

So you are saying that God(for you) is the result of your need for a creator and imagination?

Kekvit Irae

08-03-2007, 20:15

Blodrast

08-03-2007, 22:05

:clown:
Oh, and while we are on the subject, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is the perfect example why I do not believe. No loving god would advocate rape against virgins.

I am very spiritual, just not religious. I believe in making humanity a better place. I do not believe that everything should rest in a divine being's hands.

Errr, you do know that the Bible contains a lot of metaphores, allegories, and symbolic stuff, right ? You ALSO know that quite a few of the modern Christians put a lot more emphasis on the New Testament, rather than the Old one, which is pretty much fire and brimstone and "you picked your nose, you'll burn in hell" and does indeed paint the picture of a very unforgiving and cruel God, right ?

As for your last statement, that is not exclusive at all with a divine supreme being. As you know, the Scripture says we were given freedom of choice. That means exactly what you said: that it does NOT all rest in a divine being's hands, but it's all up to us. In other words, God said: you kids do whatever y'all want, but be prepared to assume the consequences. So it does not all rest in a divine being's hands at all.

Byzantine Mercenary

08-03-2007, 23:16

How is the "existance" of an abstract god logical?
why is it illogical? it is a logical anser to the need for a creator

Science does not disprove a lot of things.

So you are saying that God(for you) is the result of your need for a creator and imagination?
exactly and when it doesnt disprove them, when you go around calling them illogical you are making an assumption and so challenging that concept on faith alone (not nessisaryly bad unless you are claiming all faith illogical as i believe Bijo is).

my need? that sounds a bit psycological, its an anser not linked to me fullfilling my needs. I find it a good anser, please present yours (i am sure there are others) this is not designed to be a proof for god, more a proof that there are logical reasons for there being a god.

Morover i would resent any undertone that religious people cannot be entirely as subjective in their annalysis of this as atheists.

Innocentius

08-03-2007, 23:23

And on a more serious note:

ok then, so what no creator?

no creator = no creation

surely everything is made...

(didn't want to get rid of your bible then)

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Everything is not made. It exists, but does that mean it has to have been created at some point or what? Why seek a meaning and behind a natural process?

Innocentius

08-03-2007, 23:34

why is it illogical? it is a logical anser to the need for a creator

What? Why don't you just answer my question instead of countering it with another, illogical, question? Is it because you have no real answer and your faith is simply based on the irrational belief in some sort of god?
Also, I think you misunderstood what I wrote or you just missed a few words in your previous post: You wrote that the existance of God was logical, and I asked how is the existance of an abstract god logical? It might be a logical answer to the "need" of a creator (why would you need a creator?), but it's not logical reasoning. Something abstract can never be logical.

Kekvit Irae

08-03-2007, 23:56

Errr, you do know that the Bible contains a lot of metaphores, allegories, and symbolic stuff, right ? You ALSO know that quite a few of the modern Christians put a lot more emphasis on the New Testament, rather than the Old one, which is pretty much fire and brimstone and "you picked your nose, you'll burn in hell" and does indeed paint the picture of a very unforgiving and cruel God, right ?

So modern Christians prefer to shun the Old Testament in favor of the New Testament, despite they are part of the same book in the same religion? They prefer to ignore laws set down by God, and follow the words of Jesus instead?

Byzantine Mercenary

08-04-2007, 01:35

What? Why don't you just answer my question instead of countering it with another, illogical, question? Is it because you have no real answer and your faith is simply based on the irrational belief in some sort of god?
Also, I think you misunderstood what I wrote or you just missed a few words in your previous post: You wrote that the existence of God was logical, and I asked how is the existence of an abstract god logical? It might be a logical answer to the "need" of a creator (why would you need a creator?), but it's not logical reasoning. Something abstract can never be logical.
i didn't say abstract, the existence of a god is a logical possibility, my question is not illogical i ask why you say that the existence of a god is illogical.

To clarify my answer would be that the existence of a god is a logical possibility, one reason why this is a possibility is the need for a creator, why do we need a creator? (when i refer to this i do not Necessarily mean a god per sa).

every event is a result of those preceding it right? if you go back in time you would have long strings of such events back until the beginning of the universe, but then you have a problem, there's no cause, nothing that can start the universe as that event would surely have to have had others that preceded it.

Everything needs a cause, my standpoint would be that at the beginning the cause was external, it would have to be outside of time as the way i see it, it is only when there is no time that you would not need to worry about causes, this source outside of time is what i refer to as a creator.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Everything is not made. It exists, but does that mean it has to have been created at some point or what? Why seek a meaning and behind a natural process?
yes but why does it exist? you must answer this question what was the cause?
it does need to be created (i do not neceesarily mean created in the direct sense) in order to exist!

for instance, you say there is a star i ask when was it created, for if it was not created it would not be there i cannot except the anser that it is just there! i hate that kind of anser! :laugh4:

So modern Christians prefer to shun the Old Testament in favour of the New Testament, despite they are part of the same book in the same religion? They prefer to ignore laws set down by God, and follow the words of Jesus instead?
same book? it means nothing that they are in the same book, the bible is not a book! it is a library!

naut

08-04-2007, 03:37

Why not?

The way I see it why not have religion, the majority of religions have a core belief (if you leave out all the other crap) of being good and dignified towards your fellow human. And IMHO if it doesn't harm anyone then why not let people believe in what they like.

I think what you are confusing is people believing in stuff themselves and people going out and actively preaching what they believe. And judging by your hostility towards religion I think you should not judge other's by what they believe, but by their actions.

People take things too literally, in general nobody keeps an open mind or will except things outside their comfort zone. Genetically and environmentally (i.e. your background) everyone is different and predispositioned towards certain, religious, cultural and political stances. Religious folk rejecting science is of the same mental block as scientific folk rejecting religion. It may not seem like it but it is, because both sides have minds that are too closed to possibly accept other solutions to a Universe we can possibly never truly understand and grasp.

No one is worthy of judging another persons beliefs because everyone is fundamentally flawed. We are humans, whether designed by divinity or the luck of years of evolution, humans are not perfect, ever. Period.

Blodrast

08-04-2007, 06:44

So modern Christians prefer to shun the Old Testament in favor of the New Testament, despite they are part of the same book in the same religion? They prefer to ignore laws set down by God, and follow the words of Jesus instead?

I find your sarcasm a bit too close to baiting.
The answer to your question is yes. Most Christians *I* know follow the words of Jesus (or at least they are supposed to).
Religion doesn't require you to stick your head in the sand and literally interpret everything that's written in some texts. It provides guidelines, and advice. We're free to follow it, or not, whatever we want (see freedom of choice again).

As for linking to some fringe silly website that twists and distorts excerpts from the Bible, I'm afraid that only erodes your position and your argument, and I find it ... cheap. :thumbsdown:

Also, perhaps you ignored the part of my previous post where I said that not everything in the Bible ought to be taken literally, and I mentioned metaphors, symbolism, and allegories... but hey, if you found a website that twists and extracts things out of context and hard-headedly interprets things in whatever way is convenient for their point and ridicules my beliefs, I guess you win! :2thumbsup:

I could spend 5 minutes on google and find a dozen loon fringe pro-religion Bible thumpers, who distort everything the Bible says, and another dozen loon fringe anti-religion maniacs, who also distort everything the Bible says - only in a different manner.
What does your link prove, besides the fact that you can find absolutely anything, no matter how crazy/stupid/pandering-to-some-weird-fetish, on the Internet ?
How does it support your point ?

But I guess sarcasm and ridicule are the only tools remaining when your only point is to diminish your interlocutor's position.

Anyway, I see it was a mistake to enter this thread, and you'd think I would have known better after the first version of the thread...
Now I'll step out of it, and you can always find me if you want to actually have a civilized discussion on the topic without mocking and/or baiting me.

John86

08-04-2007, 08:14

The way I see it why not have religion, the majority of religions have a core belief (if you leave out all the other crap) of being good and dignified towards your fellow human. And IMHO if it doesn't harm anyone then why not let people believe in what they like.

Religion is an essential backbone for the masses. The concept of a religion will always form, being a sort of high wealth asset to humanity. The point is, "a search for truth" in no way means bettering survival, Hence it has no purpose in an asset of human survival. Referring to Christianity, religion massively distorts biblical scriptures. What Jesus originally stated as a teacher, religion jumps on and forces upon him a role of authority. Yet again, all formation of religion strives the basis of the human instinct of survival.

I think a John Lennon quote works well here:
"I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now? "
Hence, it is entirely rational to believe God exists. If a thought exists, God must exist.

I, for one, do not take part in religion, nor believe in the God deemed and detailed by the religion I was born under.

By stating religion holds someone back from achieving truth is to state there is a set truth. Who is to say by following a guide of religion truth will not follow? What is truth? If truth is personal to ones self, then stating truth is only findable outside of religion is a contradiction to truth itself. Take Thomas Aquinas for example. He claimed: "I cannot go on . . . All that I have written seems to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me." Thomas Aquinas apparantly found a glimpse of truth, yet he held a religion very closely. Why can truth not follow through religion as well as without? Why are not all things existent a glimpse of truth? Hence why can religion not serve as a guide to truth as much as the morphing of a mind without religion? All things existent affect and morph the opinions of all other things existent. Hence those of you writing talking of "irrational beliefs" fall under those beliefs as well. If we are to state all religion as irrational, then all existence must in turn be irrational, making the search for "truth" as evident or lacking in religion as in anywhere.

The argument within this thread does not appear over the existence of a God deemed and detailed by religion, but over the application and usefullness of religion. If you regard religion as something that simply "is", it maintains the same status as all other things existent, making it a vial of truth just as anything is.

Banquo's Ghost

08-04-2007, 08:43

There are some posts here that have descended very close to religion bashing, which breaks the forum rules.

I am locking the thread temporarily, pending staff discussion.

UPDATE:

After discussion and suitable pruning, the thread is reopened for business.

Religious threads are often subject to robust debate which is a good thing for all concerned. There is a fine line between stating your views with passion and being rude or inflammatory. Even in disagreement, there is room for respect for others' sincerely held beliefs, however alien to our own worldview.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Agent Miles

08-07-2007, 18:57

Reason and belief are two parallel lines that never cross. Each leads to the separate truth that only scientific knowledge or religious wisdom can bring. I can’t write an equation on the blackboard that describes why I shouldn’t kill everything that I feel threatens me. However, I know that my white corpuscles do exactly this every day to keep me alive.
The problem is that we are all prisoners of what we believe, but not of what we know. I believe that I will always love my wife. I swore an oath to do this and have kept that oath for over twenty years. If the police arrest my wife tomorrow for having murdered her past husbands and for trying to poison me, then I would have reason to give up this belief, but I would not otherwise do so of my own volition. We all hope to have the moral courage to uphold our beliefs.
Knowledge doesn’t work this way. After Galileo gazed at Jupiter through his telescope, the world knew that it had four moons. When I was a child, we knew that Jupiter had nine moons. Children today know that it has over sixty moons. It would be ridiculous to say something like, “What Galileo knew is good enough for me!” or “I knew how many moons Jupiter had as a child. Young people now will know anything.”, although, people of belief may use such arguments all the time.
Knowledge and belief share the same remarkable tool of language. The Bible, Qoran and Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity are all incredible works. Language is not perfect, though. A scientific law does not imply a law giver and a complex molecule is simply larger than a simple molecule. DNA and H2O both arose by the same route. Words are inexact and it is not easy or necessary to differentiate between laws and theory.
However, if I say that I believe that in the next room, there is a wild goose that sings and smokes a cigar, then a child of two could disprove my belief by simply looking for himself. If I change one word in my statement to, in the next galaxy, there is a wild goose that sings and smokes a cigar, now my belief cannot be disproved by the efforts of the entire human race in a million years. No scientist will ever ask for a grant to conduct an archeological dig on Mount Olympus to disprove that Zeus was the creator of the universe and no one should go on a wild goose chase to disprove what someone else believes.
Knowledge leads us to the truth about our universe. Wisdom leads us to the truth about ourselves.

Bijo

08-07-2007, 19:11

First I am to thank the Org authorities for the reopening of the thread.

I hope our discussions will continue to stimulate each other.

---

The observation that i have expressed is not so much a religious one either, the need for a creator allows belief in god as a valid solution to this problem, it doesn't prove it (I wouldn't claim it does) but the existance of god is a good anser to me and is perfectly logical (the aspects of this god are a different debate).
I think I understand what it is you mean. What you mean is that the occurrence of belief in God is rational? Perhaps the event is logical as in it is a logical occurrence if we carefully analyze human nature, but it does not make the event itself, its nature, logical or rational. Without offence, I must say that the belief, its nature, in a supreme being, contextually called God, has been, is, and will probably for a long time (or even forever) remain illogical. It was said before by someone else and I will repeat it: if one does not know the answer, then say the truth that you don't know... don't concoct a story or utter a comment which is very much filled with illogic to satisfy your need for an answer.

Your response here supports that the earlier statement of the observation suggesting that religious people care little for truth regarding the matter stands strong.

Innocentius

08-07-2007, 20:19

i didn't say abstract, the existence of a god is a logical possibility

Quite simply, no. And a hypothetical god is always abstract.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Already the first sentence suggests that an abtract and hypothetical god cannot be logical.

Everything needs a cause,

As you wrote, that's your standpoint, and far from certain. I completely disagree with that.

yes but why does it exist? you must answer this question what was the cause?

There is no reason behind the existance of anything, that's where I think you're wrong. I mustn't answer the question as it's irrelevant. Searching for a cause in things seems rather pointless in my eyes.

for instance, you say there is a star i ask when was it created, for if it was not created it would not be there i cannot except the anser that it is just there! i hate that kind of anser! :laugh4:

That star was never created. When you use the word created you make it sound like there's some reasoning and thought behind that star, which there isn't. It's a big lump of burning gas, that's all.
I don't know how stars are formed, but I guess it's all available on Wiki. You can read it there, just keep in mind that no architect decided that this giant orb of burning gas should be put there. It just happened, for all I know it was completely accidental, and the same might very well apply to the creation of the universe etc.

Kralizec

08-07-2007, 21:27

Pindar did show by using valid logic that there is a God; hence his logic is rational and not irrational.

I recall Pindar wrote something like this (paraphrased): A has a cause called B. B must also have a cause, named C, and so on. At some point, there has to be a cause with no prior cause, something that has always been.

Bijo, what do you think about Pascals wager?

Bijo

08-07-2007, 23:08

Knowledge leads us to the truth about our universe.
And it is religion or general belief that does not advocate knowledge.

Bijo, what do you think about Pascals wager?
I am not so familiar with it, but I have quickly researched its basis and as far as I know it is an explanation that attempts to advocate belief in God because of the general view that if one would believe and be religious he would be allowed entrance to Heaven, while if he would not believe and not be religious he would be forced into Hell, and in either case if God does not exist you will have lost nothing and possibly gained a better(?) life. It would be a "good bet" to believe in God and live accordingly.

I would criticize his wager by stating it does not attempt to prove God's existence which is what is to be questioned (though he claims His existence cannot be proved nor disproved). It more or less advocates belief in God and appears as if it utilizes a "logical approach" to show that belief is -- from a "probability" standpoint -- beneficial for you will have gained in the end if He is and will have lost nothing if He is not. I find the claim that one would have lost nothing questionable, however. In any case, it seems a tool of logic to convince people to embrace religion and I speculate even religion would not mind to put this... "reasoning" to use. I would dare say it could be used to instill fear into people to force or coax them into believing in God.

What is in question, really, among other things, is whether God is or is not. The fact still remains that religion does not properly address the question.

Byzantine Mercenary

08-07-2007, 23:19

I had written full responses but they took up so much space i decided to put them in spoilers to save space.

I recall Pindar wrote something like this (paraphrased): A has a cause called B. B must also have a cause, named C, and so on. At some point, there has to be a cause with no prior cause, something that has always been.

to clarify my points a bit this is what i meant when i said a cause is needed.

It was said before by someone else and I will repeat it: if one does not know the answer, then say the truth that you don't know... don't concoct a story or utter a comment which is very much filled with illogic to satisfy your need for an answer.

Your response here supports that the earlier statement of the observation suggesting that religious people care little for truth regarding the matter stands strong.
you are not claiming to not know the answer, you call belief in religion illogical i have not heard you use this in reference to belief in no god.

I do not have no care for truth i have a belief that is reasonable and (for me) is the most likely, i use my first hand experience of the world in a lot of it, had i seen no evidence i would not believe.

To clarify i think that a neutral standpoint is only the most logical in a complete absence of evidence for either side, when there is no such balance i would go with the most likely.

Quite simply, no. And a hypothetical god is always abstract.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
so the existence of god is impossible? if not then it is a possibility.

Perhaps the disagreement stems from a little confusion on my part over the definition of logic. When i say logic i mean:

A solution to a problem/situation that is judged optimal

i.e. what's the logical thing to do when your injured?
call the ambulance!

Of course there are situations where this would not be the optimal but do you see what i mean?

I am sure this may not be the universal definition but its how i use the word.

Already the first sentence suggests that an abstract and hypothetical god cannot be logical.i have looked through your definition of logic, it seems that i may have misunderstood what you are saying, so for completeness i will restate what i am trying to say omitting it.

God could exist, if this is the case it is a perfectly acceptable answer to the need for a cause for the universe, therefore in absence of better evidence to the contrary it is a reasonable theory to hold to.

As you wrote, that's your standpoint, and far from certain. I completely disagree with that.
Is this a belief?, I couldn't believe that some things have no cause there is no evidence!

(when i say cause i mean precursor events that resulted in the event in question not necessarily a deeper meaning)

There is no reason behind the existence of anything, that's where I think you're wrong. I mustn't answer the question as it's irrelevant. Searching for a cause in things seems rather pointless in my eyes.
you believe there is no cause, so you do not look for one, so if there was one, you wouldn't know?

i wouldn't necessarily say everything has a reason but i would say that every event has a cause (again i do not mean this in the deeper sense but in the sense that it is the result of events that preceded it)

That star was never created. When you use the word created you make it sound like there's some reasoning and thought behind that star, which there isn't. It's a big lump of burning gas, that's all.
I don't know how stars are formed, but I guess it's all available on Wiki. You can read it there, just keep in mind that no architect decided that this giant orb of burning gas should be put there. It just happened, for all I know it was completely accidental, and the same might very well apply to the creation of the universe etc.
the star was originally hydrogen clouds i believe, those hydrogen clouds existed, so they always existed? their just there? that answer would seem to fudgy for me.

when i was taught laws of maths in college the lecturer would always answer when asked why that's the rule ''it just is!'' that answer taught us nothing, all it really showed us was that there was a reason but the teacher didn't know it.

it would seem that the difference in our views stem from one central idea, i think that every event has preceding events that caused it, am i right in assuming you do not?
In summary, all i am saying realy is that i think every event is the result of those preceding it all the way back to an original cause, and that in turn a reasonable anser for the origin of this cause is god.

Bijo

08-08-2007, 00:48

To BM:

What is to be understood is that logic is concerned with valid clear thought, sound judgment, premises that are true or false and valid conclusions based thereon, etc.

I think we more or less agree that it can be a logical outcome, an event, that the need for an answer can make people believe in an entity they call God Who has certain properties that make little sense, but that this event itself is illogical rings true.

Would my following quick summary regarding your argument be correct?
Conclusion: God is.
Premise(s): there is a need for a creator.

If we are to take a neutral standpoint I would personally say 'no'. 'Why not be fair and simply say we do not know? Let us follow where reason, science, logic, lead us and perhaps we will find the answer, the truth. But let us not make claims without proper support.'

And this quote
you are not claiming to not know the answer, you call belief in religion illogical i have not heard you use this in reference to belief in no god.

I do not have no care for truth i have a belief that is reasonable and (for me) is the most likely, i use my first hand experience of the world in a lot of it, had i seen no evidence i would not believe.

To clarify i think that a neutral standpoint is only the most logical in a complete absence of evidence for either side, when there is no such balance i would go with the most likely.

Can you please make it a bit more clear? I had trouble reading it.

AntiochusIII

08-08-2007, 01:41

In summary, all i am saying realy is that i think every event is the result of those preceding it all the way back to an original cause, and that in turn a reasonable anser for the origin of this cause is god.Bear with me here, since I'm a novice when it comes to the whole logic stuff.

However, if the problem is:

A is caused by B. B is caused by C. And C is caused by D...to the nth number.

I personally see two answers to it:

1) There is a cause that has not been caused somewhere, i.e. "God." The nth number is a beginning, it has no cause.
2) There is no cause, the nth number represents the infinite, as in math, where the limits of logic are altogether too clear.

Here is my opinion, that is to say, my basic high school grasp of logic (anyone feel free to educate me, I'm not a haughty know-it-all type and can admit I'm wrong, as this case probably is :bow: ):

Both answers are illogical -- both break the flow of logic. Both are equally (in?)valid. Yet they are also the only two answers I can deduce from the problem. Both are possibilities, heck, plausible possibilities.

Logic favors neither *according to my understanding*. The human, if he/she works exclusively from the basis of logic, has no justifiable reason to prefer one over another.

So logic in this case is flawed. It neither supports the Atheist (Bijo, me(?)) nor the Believer. What should be used to choose then? Does it even matter to decide?

Conclusion: It is not logical to say there is a God, nor is it to say there is no God.

Remember, I am an ignorant idiot. My limited attempt at a logical thought process is probably flawed, so hammer away. :smash:
___________________

However, logic is *boring*. If I find a completely logical person I'd eventually probably have an urge to slap him/her just to get some humanity back in, and I don't even slap people that often...almost never. I'm the John Lennon kind of person and agree that elves and dragons and cat-girls probably exist if only in my mind and that's enough. And for the whole with a cause-never caused thing, I lean on the latter because I believe the infinite is actually easier to comprehend than its opposite, nothingness.

I mean, sure, "infinite," anyone understands. It's big, it's very big, it's infinitely big. It's the always; it's Neverland. There's no end, no horizon, absolute, everything. Moksha. There. Done deal. Infinite understood. Partially. Almost. I don't care; it's enough.

Nothingness? Creepy. Hella creepy. Absolutely creepy. Scarier than zombies. It's empty. Is it absolute? Or is it the opposite of absolute? Is it both at the same time? Can I even call "nothingness" it? But if nothingness is nothing, how the hell do I even have a concept for...that? Is it darkness, or is darkness not even nothing? Arr. It hurts. I should go commit suicide and go back to nothingness or something ... go back to nothingness? What the hell? I can't do that!*

Etc.

*upon contemplating, that sounds like a good (non-logical) cause to believe in a Deity actually. Or at least a place where I can be forever :/

Navaros

08-08-2007, 09:24

Why believe religion?

Well, how about extending that question to: Why believe what the anti-religion, aka secular humanism, which sweeping modern society like a plague teaches?

People believe in secular humanism and all of it's unproved trappings (ie: macro-evolution, the purpose of life is personal gratification, there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong, the Earth is billions of years old etc. etc.) just because they are "told to" in schools and in the media.

Do these people search for truth? No, they do not. They believe the tenets of secular humanism solely because it is embedded into their psyche via constant bombardment everywhere. And they leave it at that, rather than embarking on any sort of search for truth.

The point of this post is to illustrate that secular humanist supporters trying to bash the belief in religion are just as gulity of being indoctrinated and believing only based on that indoctrination as the religious people they criticize. Therefore the question in the thread title is akin to a case of "The pot calling the kettle black".

Rodion Romanovich

08-08-2007, 09:52

Here is my opinion, that is to say, my basic high school grasp of logic (anyone feel free to educate me, I'm not a haughty know-it-all type and can admit I'm wrong, as this case probably is ):
The reasoning is perfectly valid, and you also make clear what is assumptions and what is your logical argumentation.

Logic favors neither *according to my understanding*.
This is also correct. Logic alone won't confirm either stance. Logic alone only makes the assumptions that the laws of logic are correct. Additional assumptions must be added before any such conclusions can be drawn. And then it's just as important to discuss the correctness of the assumptions as the validity of the logical argument.

And for the whole with a cause-never caused thing, I lean on the latter because I believe the infinite is actually easier to comprehend than its opposite, nothingness.
I tend to agree to this. The whole cause and effect model is just a highly simplified, time-discretized model of reality anyway. Until the quantum mechanics guys prove that time, like energy, have a smallest indivisible component - a time quantum - cause and effect seems a lot like a physically incorrect model of reality. However you can of course use cause and effect-like models of reality when you want to empirically model something complex, because the math and theory behind cause and effect is quite simple compared to physically accurate continuous-time models.

So - if you like me consider cause and effect to be an physically incorrect model of reality - and instead consider the world a continuous-time system of mutual interaction between objects, then the whole "first cause" assumption makes no sense at all. That is one argument against using the "first cause" argument for God's existence.

The other, is a problem that occurs even if we go as far as to accepting the cause and effect model to be true. The cause and effect theory itself states that nothingness can't cause something. The purest application of the cause and effect theory is to state that there has been an infinite chain of causes and effects. But some make the argument that infinity is absurd, and instead choose to invent a special entity called the first cause, before which nothing existed. But that first cause must have existed infinitely long, unless it was created out of nothing, which contradicts the assumption that infinity is absurd. Some see this self-contradiction, and withdraw the claim that infinity is absurd, only to, in their attempt to find a way to prove God's existence rather than attempt to seek the truth - instead make the obscure and unverifiable assumption that time too was created by the first cause. If time was created by the first cause, then the first slot of time quanta in the cause and effect model is given a special status that is different from all others. Why would that be? What justifies making a set of 3 very strange and unjustified assumptions to arrive at this convoluted conclusion, instead of accepting the simple infinitity which the cause and effect model supports in it's purest form? Besides, why drive the idea of God as a creator of the universe in absurdum? The bible doesn't call him creator of time and matter, only arranger of matter into constellations. This matter, and time, could already exist beforehand. Additionally, the bible itself states that time existed during the process when God created these things: he created everything during a week - a time entity. Moreover, why interpret "the beginning" in the bible as the beginning of the entire universe? This is stated nowhere, just as interpreting Adam and Eve as the first humans, is unsupported. "The beginning" can be the beginning of the story, just like many authors today - inspired by the bible - begin their stories with sentences like "it all begun that snowy afternoon in 2001". Similarly, Adam and Eve are not the first human beings - that would require them to use incest to reproduce. On the contrary, Adam and Eve are the first humans to eat of the forbidden fruit, symbolizing the transition to farming societies.

"1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
[...]
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
[...]
2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
[...]
2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. "

If the whole tradition that Adam was the first man would be a correct interpretation, then 1. God would have created man twice, 2. Adam and Eve would have used incest, and 3. God isn't good because he encourages incest?!! :dizzy2: Notice the upper and lower text highlighted in bold. Then notice the middle text highlighted in bold, and the fact that Adam means "ground" or "earth", or even "farmer". That interpretation contains no contradictions.

I think logic, as well as religion, can both be used just to support whatever ideas they want to be true, rather than to be used to an honest search for truth in any particular way. A lot of fanatic religious traditionalists discourage others within their religion from searching for the truth even in their own holy books (like the example with Adam and Eve I illustrated above)! Similarly, there are scientists who for one reason or another can't accept certain things to be disproven because they have built their entire philosophy on those things to be true and everything will fall apart if they are contradicted on that point.

I don't think the choice between religious and atheist is a nearly as important one, as the choice between dogmatic truth denying and honest truth searching. The bible makes a lot more sense when read while ignoring the Roman-Imperial tradition (the tradition of the murderers of Jesus), just as science makes much more sense if you are critical to everything you don't think makes sense and continously evaluate what you read.

The bad guys are the ones who refuse to change opinions when their standpoints are disproven, and are searching for ways to prove a statement they want to be true, instead of searching for a statement that is true. The true truth-seeker and wisdom-lover begins at a method, and ends up at a statement. The deceiver and dogmatic begins at a statement, and ends up at a convoluted argument for it.

Ice

08-08-2007, 10:08

Sigurd

08-08-2007, 13:51

A very good post LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1632314&postcount=105), a very good post indeed.

Using logic, as in using the rules of logic, we can validate many absurdities.
I guess this is what Bijo is referring to as irrational or illogical. The fact is that these logical statements are valid and hence rational.
When it comes to the individual’s sense of viewing the world, we can’t really use the words irrational or illogical because there are specific rules in place for the use of these terms.
I think the word I used for Creatio ex-nihilo was absurd. This is a subjective loaded word which refers to my view of reality.
I have never supported the in the beginning was nothing and out of nothing the universe was created organised, argumentation.
But I can’t refute this statement and hence I am honest enough to take the agnostic stance of: not knowing. But in my head it is absurd because I think you have to have something to make something else.
Every religious movement will have trouble with the first cause argumentation as it implies a beginning somewhere and I guess science have the same problem with the Big bang theory as that is a first cause argument for the existence of our universe.

I am not sure when exactly the ex-nihilo arguments began, but I am guessing the schools of philosophy during the reorganisation of the first Christian church had something to do with it. From then on it got stuck and it became as Legio said (not quoted), a nailed down premise that by default became basis for further argumentation and seeking of knowledge/truth.

This topic is rather difficult at the poles and the, in my mind, sensible (as opposite of absurd) stance will always be the centre position of suspension of judgement, the position we call agnosticism (thank you Huxley).
And we shouldn’t resort to tactlessness in our opposition to either pole position. Through history many great minds have taken a stance at either side of the poles.

Innocentius

08-08-2007, 15:36

Dropping this whole thing about logics:

God could exist, if this is the case it is a perfectly acceptable answer to the need for a cause for the universe, therefore in absence of better evidence to the contrary it is a reasonable theory to hold to.

No, it's not a reasonable theory, especially if you mean theory as in a scientific theory. In science, one must always exclude that which there is absolutely no evidence for. The famous Dawkins example of the teacup (or maybe it was a kettle, anwyay) in space, orbiting around the sun. This teacup would be too small to spot, and thus we cannot prove it, be we can never prove that it doesn't exist.
As long you have no proof for anything (neither pro nor contra) one must assume it does not exist. That is, from a scientific viewpoint. Religion asks people to believe, have faith, which is the very essence of religion; believing without doubting. From an objective - and scientific - point of view, the existance of a god is untrue until proven otherwise (and as of today, no evidence can be brought up by either side, which is why one must assume there is no God).

the star was originally hydrogen clouds i believe, those hydrogen clouds existed, so they always existed? their just there? that answer would seem to fudgy for me.

Well, I never said that. Like I said, I don't know how stars are formed, but I am certain there is no reason they are formed.

it would seem that the difference in our views stem from one central idea, i think that every event has preceding events that caused it, am i right in assuming you do not?

No, I too believe that every event is a response to either a natural demand or the event preceeding it (thus explaining evolution), but I can't except the abstract idea of some sort of creator or "mastermind" behind it all.

Do these people search for truth? No, they do not. They believe the tenets of secular humanism solely because it is embedded into their psyche via constant bombardment everywhere. And they leave it at that, rather than embarking on any sort of search for truth.

The point of this post is to illustrate that secular humanist supporters trying to bash the belief in religion are just as gulity of being indoctrinated and believing only based on that indoctrination as the religious people they criticize. Therefore the question in the thread title is akin to a case of "The pot calling the kettle black".

Well, not really. I'm not a humanist myself, but I regard atheism (or possibly agnosticism) as the only way of objectively viewing religion. Religion, as I've already written above, asks for more or less blind belief and faith. Thus, religion in no way searches for a truth, as it claims it has already been found, while atheism (or other secular standpoints) claim there is no truth. Isn't critically viewing all the possibilities rather than blindly accepting one (as the truth) closer to the actual "truth"?

Err... I'm really confused by all this theological and metaphysical stuff, none of my business I guess. Sorry if I've come across as confused and incoherent in this post.

Bijo

08-08-2007, 15:44

[COLOR=black]Using logic, as in using the rules of logic, we can validate many absurdities.
I guess this is what Bijo is referring to as irrational or illogical. The fact is that these logical statements are valid and hence rational.

I am uncertain if I am following what you mean. Can you elaborate and specify?

Byzantine Mercenary

08-08-2007, 16:50

I would just like to state that i have never had the fortune of studying philosophy or logic so this is why a few of my definitions have been off the mark and i haven't perhaps stated thing 100% correctly, my apologies. One of the reasons that i am posting here is that i wish to improve in these areas so i ask that you bear with me...

AntiochusIII, i think you have pretty much the idea i am getting at and i can see why you have your standpoint, i personally can't really countenance the idea that there is an infinite past which is why i lean towards the 1st argument

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix, i agree with a lot of what your saying too i do endeavour to honestly search for the truth, perhaps i have been a little to dogmatic in previous posts...

ive put the rest in spoilers again to save space.

No, it's not a reasonable theory, especially if you mean theory as in a scientific theory. In science, one must always exclude that which there is absolutely no evidence for. The famous Dawkins example of the teacup (or maybe it was a kettle, anyway) in space, orbiting around the sun. This teacup would be too small to spot, and thus we cannot prove it, be we can never prove that it doesn't exist.
As long you have no proof for anything (neither pro nor contra) one must assume it does not exist. That is, from a scientific viewpoint. Religion asks people to believe, have faith, which is the very essence of religion; believing without doubting. From an objective - and scientific - point of view, the existence of a god is untrue until proven otherwise (and as of today, no evidence can be brought up by either side, which is why one must assume there is no God).
i do not mean theory so much as a scientific theory but as an idea not universally held as fact. I agree that if you have no evidence for something then there is no reason to believe that it does exist but there is some evidence, again maybe not universally accepted evidence but i am persuaded.

Well, I never said that. Like I said, I don't know how stars are formed, but I am certain there is no reason they are formed.
i am not looking for reasons, i am looking for causes

No, I too believe that every event is a response to either a natural demand or the event preceding it (thus explaining evolution), but I can't except the abstract idea of some sort of creator or "mastermind" behind it all.well the idea that every event is a response to the event preceding it is the one i am getting at, i do not mean to allude to reasons behind things.

To BM:

What is to be understood is that logic is concerned with valid clear thought, sound judgement, premises that are true or false and valid conclusions based thereon, etc.

I think we more or less agree that it can be a logical outcome, an event, that the need for an answer can make people believe in an entity they call God Who has certain properties that make little sense, but that this event itself is illogical rings true.

Would my following quick summary regarding your argument be correct?
Conclusion: God is.
Premise(s): there is a need for a creator.

If we are to take a neutral standpoint I would personally say 'no'. 'Why not be fair and simply say we do not know? Let us follow where reason, science, logic, lead us and perhaps we will find the answer, the truth. But let us not make claims without proper support.'
your summary is correct, but there is some evidence for god and that evidence persuades me.

And this quote
Can you please make it a bit more clear? I had trouble reading it.
Yeah sure
when you talked about religion as contrary to a search for truth i saw that as not quite the middle ground. I would agree with many other posters here that agnosticism is the middle ground in this debate and so i felt that if you truly held the middle ground you would be equally critical of an assumption that there is no god.

Additionally i do try and search for the truth, if i had seen no evidence for god i wouldn't believe.

To clarify i feel that a neutral standpoint is only the most logical in a complete absence of evidence for either side. In the question of god there is evidence on each side and the evidence for god persuades me.

Boyar Son

08-08-2007, 19:11

see....

you guys are believing in how (science) and want to replace that with why (God)... you know?

science is how... a volcano erupts... it rains... earthquakes...

God is part why, but mostly morals and human good.... why we shouldnt kill... why we would endanger ourselves to save a baby or someone you love...

it doesnt make sence, why are you people trying to replace morals of religion with plain intelectual science? they dont fit... how are you gonna put logic on top of morals... get it... doesnt make sence...

Maybe the only way you can get God and science together, is that God wanted this, and science is how he did it...something like his tool.

EDIT: athiests, believing in science over God does not mean you have achieved intelectual superiority... all it means is you gave up on God. ok?

atheotes

08-08-2007, 21:37

see....

God is part why, but mostly morals and human good.... why we would endanger ourselves to save a baby or someone you love...

You need not be religious or believe in God to do this... you dont even have to be a human being to do this!!!

it doesnt make sence, why are you people trying to replace morals of religion with plain intelectual science? they dont fit... how are you gonna put logic on top of morals... get it... doesnt make sence...

I do not agree with your argument: being religious is the only way to have higher morals. yes, religions teach good morals (and a few things that can be classified immoral) but you dont have to be religious/have faith in God to acquire good morals.

Bijo

08-08-2007, 21:45

EDIT: well, Atheotes has answered before me it seems :)

see....

you guys are believing in how (science) and want to replace that with why (God)... you know?

science is how... a volcano erupts... it rains... earthquakes...

God is part why, but mostly morals and human good.... why we shouldnt kill... why we would endanger ourselves to save a baby or someone you love...

it doesnt make sence, why are you people trying to replace morals of religion with plain intelectual science? they dont fit... how are you gonna put logic on top of morals... get it... doesnt make sence...

Maybe the only way you can get God and science together, is that God wanted this, and science is how he did it...something like his tool.

EDIT: athiests, believing in science over God does not mean you have achieved intelectual superiority... all it means is you gave up on God. ok?
Regrettable, for I must say that is incorrect.

It does not regard a replacement of religion by science or a combination of the two. The whole point I've been attempting to make is that logic, science, philosophy, etc., are (more) proper ways to fairly seek truth and we are not to make claims we cannot properly support. As mentioned by others and by me, religion mainly relies on blind faith and is hardly critical in nature.

Science is about the 'how' and about the 'why'. So can logic be and philosophy. Religion on the other hand regards only the 'why' it seems. And then it is still the critical question to ask whether their 'why' is true and this is a performance they do not wish to undertake and is -- quite frankly -- not in their interest even.

Moralism is possible without religion. Religion simply is no requirement for moralism to be. I can more or less fairly say I am moral in nature or I advocate ("good") moralism, but it is not due to religion... it is because of philosophies having been my praxes which have chosen me whereafter I embraced them/it. One does not require a belief in God or a life to be generally lived according to religion to be moral.

EDIT: athiests, believing in science over God does not mean you have achieved intelectual superiority... all it means is you gave up on God. ok?
If this addresses me, first I am to ask you if you think I am an atheist.

Second, I do not believe in science (over God).

Third; who actually has claimed to have achieved intellectual superiority? Atheists?

Fourth; how does.... "belief in science" (for lack of a better description) imply one has given up on God?

Boyar Son

08-08-2007, 22:42

No you guys Science has nothing to do with morals!! what do they teach in science 101? how to be a good person?... see what i mean...

Morals obviously came from religion guys... @ we dont need religion to have morals

for example... a chicken doesnt believe in God... does it have morals? knows right/wrong?

All our morals came from religion guys.... since you were a kid you understood basic right/wrong...later on when you give up on God... you probably retain some good morals...

and my argument is that it doesnt make sense [yeah thx for pointing that out guys(sarcasm)] to put morals against explanations.

Answering question... I said believing science over God...

Yes Athiest are intelectuals...

Also u dont have to be religious to save ppl...but u damn sure cant go through life without religion affecting u and ur way of thinking...

Sigurd

08-09-2007, 08:59

I am uncertain if I am following what you mean. Can you elaborate and specify?

In danger of having completely misunderstood your post, I will try to elaborate and do indeed give specific examples.
I forget where you stated this, but you said something like: A belief in God is irrational.
Is this true? If not, disregard my post.
I was hoping Pindar would do this himself, but he is obviously “taking five”.
Pindar did set up this valid argument in a previous post:

1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinate regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.

Ok… this is a valid argument and following the rules of logic it becomes rational.
The difference between a contingent being and a necessary being is that the necessary being has no beginning and one can conclude that this being is God.
A belief in this necessary being is hence not irrational.
Here comes the crux, is this a truth claim? It sure looks that way.

Take another example:

There is a comedy written by Ludvig Holberg called Jeppe på Berget.
A farmer has two sons. One takes care of the farm and the other goes to Copenhagen to study.
The student named Rasmus Berg starts calling himself Erasmus Montanus to show that he is a learned person.
He comes home and starts flaunting his argumentation skills. He demonstrates using formal logic that his mother must be a stone. This is off course an absurdity, but his logic is valid and hence rational. His mother is quite upset and starts crying. He then demonstrates other attributes to his mother that surely indicates that she is not a stone.

What I am saying is that absurdities can be validated through the use of logic. Logic that is perfectly rational.

In my mind using the tools of philosophy and science has no place in religion.
The only way of making truth claims in religion is through revelation. By this I am saying: There is no way man can find God. God must make contact with man.

Andres

08-09-2007, 09:26

Something I asked myself lately: why would we need a logical or scientific explanation for God? It's religion, you believe or you don't believe. You have faith or you don't. You care about it or you don't.

Besides, isn't the matter of belief and religion situated on a different level? Aren't science and religion two different things? Isn't the question itself false?

The two can exist next to each other, can't they?

I'm still having a hard time figuring out what the word "truth" means in the context of the thread title. Scientific thruth? Moral truth? Spiritual truth? "THE truth", whatever that may be?

Husar

08-09-2007, 11:36

The two can exist next to each other, can't they?
I never really understood why some say they can't.

naut

08-09-2007, 13:43

I'm with Andres on this.

Bijo

08-09-2007, 14:55

I mean no offence as I am seriously wondering whether my points have gotten through.

No you guys Science has nothing to do with morals!! what do they teach in science 101? how to be a good person?... see what i mean...

Irrelevant.

Morals obviously came from religion guys... @ we dont need religion to have morals

False, and proven false in my previous post directed at you and by Atheotes.

for example... a chicken doesnt believe in God... does it have morals? knows right/wrong?

What does this have to do with the case? Explain.

All our morals came from religion guys.... since you were a kid you understood basic right/wrong...later on when you give up on God... you probably retain some good morals...

Are you insinuating I (or we, whomever 'we' may refer to) have been religious and lived with morals originating in religion? It seems you do, therefore you must prove this claim.

Yes Athiest are intelectuals...

I only see a claim without reasoning to support it.

Bijo

08-09-2007, 15:04

In danger of having completely misunderstood your post, I will try to elaborate and do indeed give specific examples.
I forget where you stated this, but you said something like: A belief in God is irrational.
Is this true? If not, disregard my post.
What I more or less stated is that religion and its belief are irrational, they do not fairly seek truth, it is suggested they care little for the truth (about "God" as they simply rely on belief), etc., and that the event/occurrence that man believes in God is a logical one for it is due to human nature whereto they are vulnerable.

Forgive me for not addressing your post in more detail, but my mind is too fatigued to respond greatly and I'm working on a ****** computer.

Bijo

08-09-2007, 15:16

The two can exist next to each other, can't they?
If you refer to coexistence that is a tricky matter. 'Co' implying "together" (which could be perceived as "simultaneously" as well) and 'exist' as in "to be". They can indeed coexist in this sense.

In any case, they can exist juxtaposed. Whether you mean in peace... I guess they can.

But the question is... well, must I repeat myself once more?

I'm still having a hard time figuring out what the word "truth" means in the context of the thread title. Scientific thruth? Moral truth? Spiritual truth? "THE truth", whatever that may be?
It already has been explained.

Husar

08-09-2007, 15:56

If you refer to coexistence that is a tricky matter. 'Co' implying "together" (which could be perceived as "simultaneously" as well) and 'exist' as in "to be". They can indeed coexist in this sense.

In any case, they can exist juxtaposed. Whether you mean in peace... I guess they can.
Well, science is just trying to find out how God created this world. I think there were quite a few scientists who thought so as well. The problem is that some people start to use scientific findings to prove that there can be no god, my physics teacher for example once explained something and then suddenly said "and that's why there can be no god" and I was actually very surprised how he got to that conclusion from what he explained earlier, I couldn't see the link. I guess it's about belief again. And that doesn't mean I don't question my beliefs, just lately I came to the conclusion that I have quite some common views with Sigurd who is an agnostic, I don't always accept everything a preacher says(well, not every preacher preaches the same anyway) but neither did I accept everything I was told at my humanistic(one could say atheistic, even my religion teacher was an atheist I think) high-school.

You can't just go and tell me that religious people are stupid like sheep and just follow the next best preacher they find, that simply isn't true for all religious people just like not all atheists follow the next best scientist they can find.
Think of global warming, you have two camps and everyone seems to follow the camp that suits his belief or agenda, so where is the big truth all those scientists want to find?:inquisitive:

Byzantine Mercenary

08-09-2007, 16:16

I do not think that science and religion conflict, atheism and religion may conflict but science isn't atheism.

I would also agree with those who don't believe everything their priest/science teacher says. I think that it is very wise to have an enquiring mind.

Innocentius

08-09-2007, 17:48

Morals obviously came from religion guys... @ we dont need religion to have morals

First of all, others have alreayd proven you wrong, but I'd just like to point something out: Much of "western" morality derives from Roman law, which was present long before Christendom took over as the official religion of the Empire (it was around even before Rome became an empire). As far as I understand, Roman law is very much secular, but still teaches us not to kill etc.

Second: who needs moral? Just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it's right. It seems like you hold morals to be the only thing that really matters (which would, apparently, justify religion and God), but there is nothing that suggests any kind of morals being truly valid to our lives and lifestyles. Morals are highly subjective, and there are no objective way of dealing with morals, thus we might as well scrap them IMO.
Also, morals may originate from religion in the first place, but the only reason why "moral" can be maintained is the fear of punishment. Were there no punishments, morals would soon dissapear and we'd have liberated ourselves from the narrow-minded moral thinking. This means that there is no divine power that tells you to not do this and that, it's all about how you're raised. A person that is taught (at a young age) that murder is right will murder when it fits him/her.

Boyar Son

08-09-2007, 18:24

Ok tell me the lines that proves me wrong, obviously...

aarrgghh!! everyone....listen! I said it doesnt make sense for everyone replacing morals with education of science!! plz do u see it now?? they dont fit...

As for: irrelevence....

that was an example

As for: Morals obviously came from religion guys...

Proven false? no all you made was claims without hte proof, and the only proof you used was a little example of yourself.

As for the Chicken Example...

that was directed at somebody saying that u dont need to be human to have morals... well? does the chicken have morals...its not human so it must still qualify.

Everywhere...in the smallest town, a church/temple etc. or christmas, or t.v. shows celebrating a religious holiday... you cant deny that we all picked some morals from religion...

As for aethiests are intelectuals..yes my opinion

@ innocentius- i dont think roman law existed when God gave his 10 commandments:shame: :sweatdrop: :2thumbsup:

atheotes

08-09-2007, 19:32

As for the Chicken Example...

that was directed at somebody saying that u dont need to be human to have morals... well? does the chicken have morals...its not human so it must still qualify.

Whatever i said, You have taken it out of context. I had quoted a statement of yours and countered that specific statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
see....

God is part why, but mostly morals and human good.... why we would endanger ourselves to save a baby or someone you love...

Originally Posted by Atheotes
You need not be religious or believe in God to do this... you dont even have to be a human being to do this!!!

A lot of animals are very protective of their young ones (atleast for some time after their birth). This is all i meant. You dont need belief in God to be protective/take care of your loved ones!

Boyar Son

08-09-2007, 20:50

I did not take it out of context, I used that example against that "u dont have to be human to have morals" or somethin like that...

"A lot of animals are very protective of their young ones (atleast for some time after their birth). This is all i meant. You dont need belief in God to be protective/take care of your loved ones! "

point taken (hoping u wouldnt bring that up:sweatdrop:) but thats about it for good natured animals...

Innocentius

08-09-2007, 21:15

@ innocentius- i dont think roman law existed when God gave his 10 commandments:shame: :sweatdrop: :2thumbsup:

God = no historical person
Moses = no historical person
God's ten commandments = no historical event

Also, I think the first sources of this event were written more than a thousand years past the event they describe, which gives them little to no credibility. Furthermore, Roman law developed without contact with Jewish culture anyway, so bringing up some stuff frome the Bible seems rather irrelevant.

Boyar Son

08-09-2007, 21:42

how couldnt it not be an event if the laws were made?

if the event didnt happen then the commandments didnt happen.

no credibility is to say the bible is irelevent.

Kralizec

08-09-2007, 21:54

how couldnt it not be an event if the laws were made?

if the event didnt happen then the commandments didnt happen.

no credibility is to say the bible is irelevent.

The commandments were obviously written down. The author(s), though...

Besides, the only "revolutionary" bit about the 10 commandments is the bit about there being only one God. The rest of it, the moral directives, has been practiced by societies across the world since millenia without any Jewish influence.

Bijo

08-09-2007, 21:56

[...]my physics teacher for example once explained something and then suddenly said "and that's why there can be no god" and I was actually very surprised how he got to that conclusion from what he explained earlier, I couldn't see the link.
What were his premises?

You can't just go and tell me that religious people are stupid like sheep and just follow the next best preacher they find, that simply isn't true for all religious people just like not all atheists follow the next best scientist they can find.
If 'you' refers to me, then I did not tell you what you just stated here. But I am able to carry it out however :saint:

Husar

08-09-2007, 23:30

What were his premises?
Don't remember, too long ago.

If 'you' refers to me, then I did not tell you what you just stated here. But I am able to carry it out however :saint:
That's nice of you, but you can see it as a general comment if you didn't say what I was aiming at. Though one might say it's weird that you feel like you're adressed. ~;)

HoreTore

08-09-2007, 23:34

Though one might say it's weird that you feel like you're adressed. ~;)

Not really, seeing as he started the thread ~;)

Boyar Son

08-10-2007, 00:04

The commandments were obviously written down. The author(s), though...

Besides, the only "revolutionary" bit about the 10 commandments is the bit about there being only one God. The rest of it, the moral directives, has been practiced by societies across the world since millenia without any Jewish influence.

yes because of their morals of their religion...man u guys almost made me think i was arguin' jewish influence in the ancient era c'mon,

Bijo

08-10-2007, 00:13

Not really, seeing as he started the thread ~;)
That indeed, and more importantly I was quoted when it was stated suggesting it addressed me. Enough reason to think 'you' referred to me and not to 'one' (in the third) though I knew it was possible it was used as such.

---

As for aethiests are intelectuals..yes my opinion
I question this statement and it is a good simple example that more or less addresses my point made when the thread commenced.

Opinion (here) is more or less what "you think" or what you believe -- a personal standpoint. You state that atheists are intellectuals and this is an opinion (which appears odd to me). But is it true? Are you certain that 'atheists = intellectuals: true' ?

You think it is true, but what is to be asked is if it is true regardless of what you believe.

You opine that 'atheists are intellectuals' but where is the reasoning behind this claim? How, when, and where, have you proven it to be true? The answer is 'it has not occurred, never, nowhere'.

This is to exemplify what I aim at when I speak of things such as "truth" and objectivity. There is to be no opinion on these kinds of matters but simply cold hard facts and the likes. Logic, etc.

Boyar Son

08-10-2007, 00:26

So you took a long hard look at this little sentence and come with this!?!? you sir are quite a thinker.

Bijo

08-10-2007, 00:34

So you took a long hard look at this little sentence and come with this!?!? you sir are quite a thinker.
Actually I did not spend much time on regarding the phrase (and I could have mentioned a lot more and address the rest of your post but fatigue prevents me from it ;)

I take that last part as a compliment of course :bow:

Innocentius

08-10-2007, 02:17

how couldnt it not be an event if the laws were made?

if the event didnt happen then the commandments didnt happen.

Like Kralizec said, they were made: By man, by hand, at a much later point.

no credibility is to say the bible is irelevent.

That's just grasped out of thin air and not related to what we were discussing. The Bible, in this case, was irrelevant as the only thing I mentioned was the secular Roman law to prove that moral does not neccessarily derive from religion, you brought up the ten commandments, which, in relation to my argument, was irrelevant. How does that affect my "credibility"?

Boyar Son

08-10-2007, 03:56

Bible not relevant? read the title plz

The ten commandments is a good example of law and religion together...

not to mention ur bringing up "law" here when its Religion V. science...

Innocentius

08-10-2007, 14:05

Bible not relevant? read the title plz

I have already explained why it was not relevant to the discussion. Read what other people write, please.

The ten commandments is a good example of law and religion together...

not to mention ur bringing up "law" here when its Religion V. science...

You brought up morals. Read what you write yourself, please.

Andres

08-10-2007, 14:49

Keep it friendly and civilised please. This is a nice thread. Don't ruin it or get it closed again.

Give each other a hug :knuddel:, relax :holiday: , drink a beer ~:cheers: and then you can continue :duel:

:bow:

Bijo

08-10-2007, 19:33

It would be a shame indeed if it is closed. I particularly concur with you about the beer part, though ~:cheers:

Boyar Son

08-10-2007, 21:20

I have already explained why it was not relevant to the discussion. Read what other people write, please.

You brought up morals. Read what you write yourself, please.

Yeah to explain that religion is mostly morals and it doesnt have any thing to do with science, and shouldnt be brought in with science.

But law....that waay out there...

Bijo

08-14-2007, 00:03

But I'm stunned that in these times, when we know the bible is fictional and unrealistic, made up by some guys seeking something to hold on to, and now that we don't need to hold onto that anymore, that people still believe in it. While we know it's all utter crap.

I challenge you to back up your allegations.
I shall play the "believer" in this stand off.
It's me and you Stig.

What the fact that what's written in the bible is crap?
Easy:
try walking on water
try healing someone from blindness
try turning water into wine

Since this thread regards religion and more or less criticizes it and since the actual thread in which this opposition manifested (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1637431#post1637431) has been closed, may I coax the two gentlemen to continue their standoff here?

The flow and outcome of their discussion would be most interesting to follow, analyze, and such :bow:

Sigurd

08-14-2007, 09:35

Since this thread regards religion and more or less criticizes it and since the actual thread in which this opposition manifested (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1637431#post1637431) has been closed, may I coax the two gentlemen to continue their standoff here?

The flow and outcome of their discussion would be most interesting to follow, analyze, and such :bow:

First of all, I am not an experienced debater but I do know a thing or two about religion. I think it will be a learning experience to take the side of the opposition here.

[pro religion mode: on]

What the fact that what's written in the bible is crap?
Easy:
try walking on water
try healing someone from blindness
try turning water into wine

From all the miracles and wonders explained in the good book, you pick three of the smaller ones.

This one is easy to explain.
We are dealing with Jesus Christ the son of God here. If we were to actually believe that he is God, the small feats of walking on water, healing the sick and turn water into something drinkable would be peanuts for the creator of the universe.
The entity who said: Let there be light and a blazing star lit up our solar system. The entity that took from the chaos, eternal elements, and formed a world and blew life into it, would not have difficulties commanding the blindness to go away.
He would not have difficulties commanding the water molecules to hold him up. He would not have difficulties rearranging the molecules or maybe creating new ones to make water the finest wine.

You can’t attack the miracles of someone who is believed to be the Son of God. The fact that it was written down by eye witnesses and kept all these years by different people, speaks of believable incidents. No more than 4 gospels are compiled in the canon, but there are more in the Gnostic library.
Many witnesses in a court of law establishes truth.
[pro religion mode: off]

How am I doing?

Incongruous

08-14-2007, 13:37

I don't get it Bijo.
You ask why people have religion instead of a quest for some irrefutable and universal truth(that they will find?), is that correct?

Or do you in-fact take an idealist stance in that truth is an ever evolving concept, and that the persuit of it creates a moral/truthful society? (running philosophical circles in order to save face?)

I would like you, if able to spell out for me ( a non-logician) what the truth is.
If you state what you believe to be the universal truth. To simply go searching for something of which we have not the faintest idea is idiotic.

Religion claim to have the truth, a universal truth. A God or set of such.
If you cannot give people a definable truth, then they will naturally disregard you're "truth". will they not? That's natural isn't it?

Bijo

08-14-2007, 16:09

I would like you, if able to spell out for me ( a non-logician) what the truth is.
I already have. The answer is to be found in the thread.

Innocentius

08-14-2007, 18:46

If you cannot give people a definable truth, then they will naturally disregard you're "truth". will they not? That's natural isn't it?

Natural and very unfortunate, yes.

Byzantine Mercenary

08-14-2007, 18:50

''What the fact that what's written in the bible is crap?
Easy:
try walking on water
try healing someone from blindness
try turning water into wine''

As an aside these arnt impossible, indeed all wine is made from water originally (that is absorbed by the grape vines). There are people who have been cured of blindness, and walking on water is possible for many animals (and humans who have access to a pier lol).

That an omnipotent god could contrive to create such freak events is not ''crap'' indeed i dont see that any laws of nature would need to be broken.

I have even seen magicians performs illusions of these miricles, if they can do it no doubt god could.

Now whether you actually believe that god did these things or not is another matter but the very reason that religion claims these miricles is not a sufficient evidence that the bible is ''crap''.

Bijo

08-14-2007, 23:44

Many witnesses in a court of law establishes truth.

How is this true?

Sigurd

08-15-2007, 09:38

How is this true?
Well it all depends on which definition for truth we use doesn’t it?
In this case I use the "Did it happen" version of truth. In a court of law when you have several testimonies saying the same and the testifiers are trustworthy we can say that truths pertaining to did it happen is established.
Several people saw these miracles. It is not relevant for truth to establish the method used in performing these miracles.
This is another discussion all together.

Stig claimed the bible was fictional and using his words: "crap".
When challenged on this, he replied by naming three miracles performed by Jesus.
I can’t see how you can call a book fiction just because Stig himself can not walk on water or heal the blind or turn water to wine.
This is like saying electricity is a load of crap just because you can not make electricity yourself.
It speaks of arrogance and dark age mentality. Take no offence Stig, it is not a personal attack.:beam:

Rodion Romanovich

08-15-2007, 10:22

Actually, none of Jesus' actions are miracles anymore:
- science has led to medical skills which can cure some form of blindness (light eye damage + glasses = good vision, and new forms of surgery can even repair very much damaged eyes)
- science has led to medical skills where people previously confined to bed can start walking again. Neuroscience is starting to develop increasingly advanced methods where a lot of previously irrepairable damages could be repaired, or a protesis could be given movement capabilities triggered by nerve impulses from healthy tissue.
- walking over the dead sea is no miracle, as global warming and overuse of the water for bathrooms, drinking and washing has now nearly dried out the sea

:tongue:

Only thing we can't do is turn water into wine, but water is more healthy anyway and wine promotes alcoholism.

Bijo

08-15-2007, 12:02

Regarding the court thing that has been brought up...

Well it all depends on which definition for truth we use doesn’t it?
In this case I use the "Did it happen" version of truth. In a court of law when you have several testimonies saying the same and the testifiers are trustworthy we can say that truths pertaining to did it happen is established.
[...]

But then there is still the question whether they are trustworthy -- it is to be established if they are or not. It is a possibility that these witnesses are lying (consciously or unconsciously). Consciously for instance as in: deliberately; forced/coaxed by something or someone; etc. Unconsciously for instance as in: they are ignorant; they have been fooled; they base their observation on subjectivity; etc.

Contextually the simple bottom line is that testimonies of witnesses (and the writing down of them) do not mean an event has undeniably truthfully occurred.

To exemplify more:
If the president of a nation tells his countrymen something, and it is fact that he is perceived as credible, and he is an authority which they trust, it does not mean he is saying the truth. People's belief in a statement will not alter its value from 'true' to 'false' nor vice versa nor will it even ascertain its truth value in the first place. Objectivity is required herefor.

Sigurd

08-15-2007, 12:25

Regarding the court thing that has been brought up...

But then there is still the question whether they are trustworthy -- it is to be established if they are or not. It is a possibility that these witnesses are lying (consciously or unconsciously). Consciously for instance as in: deliberately; forced/coaxed by something or someone; etc. Unconsciously for instance as in: they are ignorant; they have been fooled; they base their observation on subjectivity; etc.

Contextually the simple bottom line is that testimonies of witnesses (and the writing down of them) do not mean an event has undeniably truthfully occurred.

Unless you or any other prosecutor can prove that these witnessess are liars or has lied in the past, they are trustworthy by default. You need to find another angle to discredit the bible.

To exemplify more:
If the president of a nation tells his countrymen something, and it is fact that he is perceived as credible, and he is an authority which they trust, it does not mean he is saying the truth. People's belief in a statement will not alter its value from 'true' to 'false' nor vice versa nor will it even ascertain its truth value in the first place. Objectivity is required herefor.

This is one testemony... The Lord has said that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, truth shall be established.

Bijo

08-15-2007, 15:53

First of all, I am not an experienced debater but I do know a thing or two about religion. I think it will be a learning experience to take the side of the opposition here.

[pro religion mode: on]

From all the miracles and wonders explained in the good book, you pick three of the smaller ones.

This one is easy to explain.
We are dealing with Jesus Christ the son of God here. If we were to actually believe that he is God, the small feats of walking on water, healing the sick and turn water into something drinkable would be peanuts for the creator of the universe.
The entity who said: Let there be light and a blazing star lit up our solar system. The entity that took from the chaos, eternal elements, and formed a world and blew life into it, would not have difficulties commanding the blindness to go away.
He would not have difficulties commanding the water molecules to hold him up. He would not have difficulties rearranging the molecules or maybe creating new ones to make water the finest wine.

You can’t attack the miracles of someone who is believed to be the Son of God. The fact that it was written down by eye witnesses and kept all these years by different people, speaks of believable incidents. No more than 4 gospels are compiled in the canon, but there are more in the Gnostic library.
Many witnesses in a court of law establishes truth.

How is this true?

Well it all depends on which definition for truth we use doesn’t it?
In this case I use the "Did it happen" version of truth. In a court of law when you have several testimonies saying the same and the testifiers are trustworthy we can say that truths pertaining to did it happen is established.
Several people saw these miracles. It is not relevant for truth to establish the method used in performing these miracles.
This is another discussion all together.

Regarding the court thing that has been brought up...

But then there is still the question whether they are trustworthy -- it is to be established if they are or not. It is a possibility that these witnesses are lying (consciously or unconsciously). Consciously for instance as in: deliberately; forced/coaxed by something or someone; etc. Unconsciously for instance as in: they are ignorant; they have been fooled; they base their observation on subjectivity; etc.

Contextually the simple bottom line is that testimonies of witnesses (and the writing down of them) do not mean an event has undeniably truthfully occurred.

Unless you or any other prosecutor can prove that these witnessess are liars or has lied in the past, they are trustworthy by default. You need to find another angle to discredit the bible.
But is you, not I, who have performed the action of bringing the court into discussion as it seems it is you who have utilized it to support your argument which I have already countered or addressed logically using this same court issue which you brought in. I err not.

To exemplify more:
If the president of a nation tells his countrymen something, and it is fact that he is perceived as credible, and he is an authority which they trust, it does not mean he is saying the truth. People's belief in a statement will not alter its value from 'true' to 'false' nor vice versa nor will it even ascertain its truth value in the first place. Objectivity is required herefor.

This is one testemony... The Lord has said that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, truth shall be established.
I do not see -- and also utilizing my previous arguments -- how this reasoning invalidates mine.

Kagemusha

08-15-2007, 16:18

To sum all this talk together. Could it be Bijo that becouse you are not God, there cant be a God in your opinion? Becouse if you think that the noblest cause in life is to find truth and since you should be all knowing to find truth,in another words God. Becouse you have failed in your search, thus failing to be a God, there cant be God in your world.

Bijo

08-15-2007, 16:59

To sum all this talk together. Could it be Bijo that becouse you are not God, there cant be a God in your opinion? Becouse if you think that the noblest cause in life is to find truth and since you should be all knowing to find truth,in another words God, you have failed in your search, thus failing to be a God?
:jawdrop: What???!?

There could be more to my response but basically it is this: :strawman1:

atheotes

08-15-2007, 17:14

This is bordering on OT as the discussion has long moved on for this post to have any relevance... still wanted to share it. Most of you have probably seen this before :juggle2: ... if you havent watch till the end
video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3264831611601613379&q=battle+at+kruger&total=245&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

Kagemusha

08-15-2007, 17:46

:jawdrop: What???!?

There could be more to my response but basically it is this: :strawman1:

In another words, if you dont understand something, that doesnt necessarily mean that it doesnt exist.~;)

Bijo

08-15-2007, 19:47

Let me explain, Kage.

LONG VERSION:

To sum all this talk together.
You make the urge to provide a summation of "all this talk" which refers to the whole thread? Or to my discussion with Sigurd? Your quote here is followed by...

Could it be Bijo that becouse you are not God, there cant be a God in your opinion? Becouse if you think that the noblest cause in life is to find truth and since you should be all knowing to find truth,in another words God. Becouse you have failed in your search, thus failing to be a God, there cant be God in your world.
...that. It doesn't compute, simply because what you say does not summarize properly.

You are asking questions and it looks like a setup of a straw man. In this case: you totally shift the current subject, more or less make assumptions and conclusions disguised as questions, take a whole different approach, you even become personal as you discuss ME which can be perceived as 'ad hominem'.

In another words, if you dont understand something, that doesnt necessarily mean that it doesnt exist.
A false conclusion, totally off-subject.

SHORT VERSION:
Number 1. :strawman1:
Number 2. :strawman2:

Number 3. :strawman3: ::: this one didn't happen.

Gregoshi

08-15-2007, 19:50

At one time, back in the 50's, Truth was easy to find. It was hanging out with Justice and the American Way. Nowadays, you can find pictures of all three on milk cartons.

:stunned:

Did I just take a stab at serious, biting political humour? :clown:

Kagemusha

08-15-2007, 20:13

Let me explain, Kage.

LONG VERSION:

You make the urge to provide a summation of "all this talk" which refers to the whole thread? Or to my discussion with Sigurd? Your quote here is followed by...

...that. It doesn't compute, simply because what you say does not summarize properly.

You are asking questions and it looks like a setup of a straw man. In this case: you totally shift the current subject, more or less make assumptions and conclusions disguised as questions, take a whole different approach, you even become personal as you discuss ME which can be perceived as 'ad hominem'.

A false conclusion, totally off-subject.

SHORT VERSION:
Number 1. :strawman1:
Number 2. :strawman2:

Number 3. :strawman3: ::: this one didn't happen.

Well im sorry if i didnt make any sense to you, but i was summarizing basicly your replyes towards multitude of posters. Basicly what ever angle that doesnt support your view about the issue at hand is replied by you,with generally: You are wrong,i am right, dressed in myriad ways of wordings. Why are you disgussing things if you already have made an absolute conclusion, that cant be chanced under any circumstances? Are you trying to teach others about your truth,or what is your motivation? So that is why i made metaphor comparing you and God.
When i look through this thread, i cant help but see that as if you were trying to somehow compete with religion´s with your "truth". That was my motivation for the metaphor and i apologize if i have insulted you someway with it.

KafirChobee

08-15-2007, 22:04

The truth is here:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

All one ever needs to know about the one true religion can be found there.

For unbelievers, this ought to change your mind:
http://www.bettybowers.com/

There can be only one! :saint:

:dancinglock:

Sigurd

08-16-2007, 08:17

But is you, not I, who have performed the action of bringing the court into discussion as it seems it is you who have utilized it to support your argument which I have already countered or addressed logically using this same court issue which you brought in. I err not.
…
I do not see -- and also utilizing my previous arguments -- how this reasoning invalidates mine.
I see someone is having a little trouble grasping the obvious here.
Since you are still grinding this worn out stone I shall try explaining this again even though this debate were supposed to be between me and Stig.
It was me who called him out on a Holmgang. That others intervene is dishonouring him.

1. Stig claims the bible is fictional and hence a load of crap without giving reasoning.
2. Sigurd challenges Stig by asking for reasoning.
3. Stig gives three points. Stating that we can’t perform the three points hence it is all crap.
4. Sigurd says (pulling all posts in here) you can’t discredit the bible using these three points because they are based on eyewitness accounts. Multiple accounts by people we no longer can discredit as dishonest.
5. Sigurd asks Stig to try again using another angle.
Was it Pindar or John who wrote:
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not

Andres

08-16-2007, 08:23

Since you are still grinding this worn out stone I shall try explaining this again even though this debate were supposed to be between me and Stig.
It was me who called him out on a Holmgang. That others intervene is dishonouring him.

That particular "debate" started in another thread which got locked. Maybe he doesn't even know that it's going further in this thread?

:shrug:

Bijo, you claim the answer to this question is in the thread:

I'm still having a hard time figuring out what the word "truth" means in the context of the thread title. Scientific thruth? Moral truth? Spiritual truth? "THE truth", whatever that may be?

Maybe I'm getting old and my mind isn't what it used to be, but I really, zelfs niet met de beste wil van de wereld, can't find the answer. Can you please answer it/explain it (again, apparantly :inquisitive:)?

Incongruous

08-16-2007, 11:41

I already have. The answer is to be found in the thread.
I can't find it Bijo.
I'm getting opinion masked in the form of so called "logic".

Rodion Romanovich

08-16-2007, 15:51

4. Sigurd says (pulling all posts in here) you can’t discredit the bible using these three points because they are based on eyewitness accounts. Multiple accounts by people we no longer can discredit as dishonest.

Legally speaking, these "eyewittness accounts" aren't worth much. The eyewitnesses are seldom named, nobody who has other opinions has been allowed to enter his phrasings on the events in the text, and in the case there are primary sources in which presumptive witnesses claim something, they are not quoted by the authors of the biblical text. In the cases where they are named, they are not named unambigiously but only by first name, or "the centurion" or similar, and even when/if there are complete names anywhere, this is not enough because they may very likely be biased, and they don't even live today so they can't be asked to give their own account of the story or stand up to a trial and interrogation. Additionally, the writer who describes the event is likely biased and may even have invented the events completely for all we know. The text has then been translated by writers who were clearly biased, since mostly monks part of a coalition based on the sole claim that the religion based on this book is true. Finally, if read by a believer, you may also say it is read in a biased way. In short: using the word "eyewittness account" for bible passages such as the one quoted below and trying to make it sound like legal eyewitness accounts, is a bit cheeky and provoking to say the least.

And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
8:6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
8:7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
8:9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.
8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
8:15 And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.
8:16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:

I do not support either the religious or atheistic side in a discussion of this type. My knowledge is that God either exists or he doesn't exist. I don't know if he can be proven to exist or proven to not exist, but that all attempts made so far of either have failed, or required additional, unverifiable assumptions.

The choice of believing in God, remaining agnostic, or becoming atheist, is therefore a choice of philosophy and taste, not of knowledge. Occam's razor justifies atheism as rational despite that we can't prove God's non-existence without making assumptions. Assessing the so called "prior probability" of God's existence as high, makes belief in God rational, despite that we can't prove God's existence without making assumptions.

In fact, the only thing that is completely irrational, is claiming that God's existence or non-existence is certain, unless someone finds a way to prove either without any assumptions. If someone would do this, it would be a truly remarkable achievement worthy of great fame, for nobody has been able to make any such assumption-less argument that holds up to scrutiny (indeed most can be shown fallacious or dependent on implicitly made or deliberately hidden assumptions in less than a few minutes of scrutiny even by a group of beginners at logic).

Bijo

08-17-2007, 02:20

To Kage:

No offence is taken (and I meant no offence either).
I still do not see how your questions were summarizing my responses to a multitude of posters.

---

To Sigurd:

No, I understand what you are talking about. I initially responded to the part about witnesses asking "How is it true that witnesses in a court of law establish truth?" and up to this moment my reasoning related to it which followed later has not been invalidated.

I know it was supposed to be a discussion between you and him but it seems he is not present in the thread. It doesn't, however, must mean your engagement in discussions with others is totally excluded. I saw, I asked, I answered.

I have no intention at all to dishonour Stig (and I quite frankly find it disturbing you call intervention of others something that is dishonouring him).

---

To Andres & Bopa:

You know what the danger is of responding to your question again? I could easily slip while I do a response that is not perfectly in order with what I said earlier (which is already a while ago) which you could then attack more easily as you continue to ask the same over and over again extracting more and more out of me which means more probability I would slip meaning you could attack that more easily once more.

In the thread I have made several posts (possibly some not directly to you) that have the answer you seek. It should be obvious for the answer is among the things that I have been trying to explain with my opening of the thread, the things that were my points all along and they had been repeated.

As I respect you and your wish that I explain it once more, I must respectfully not grant it. Reasons: the one I gave in the first paragraph here to you and the fact it tires me which could even strengthen the first reason which could strengthen the second.

Sigurd

08-17-2007, 08:53

@ Legio:

The whole idea of the New Testament is that it is a witness or a testimony of Him who is the Son of God. There are four Gospels or witness accounts of the life of Jesus in the established canon but there are more: Luke indicates this in the opening chapter of his gospel:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (Luke 1:1-4).

All I am saying is that you can’t go further down that road that Stig has chosen. You bring up other valid arguments to discredit the Bible which is more damning than that of: We can’t walk on water, hence the bible is crap.
I can't use the eyewitness angle as proof to establish the truth of the Bible either beacuse of the points you made. I never intended to do this. We are at a 0:0 and it is Stig's turn to try something else.

But I am not going to let you step in for Stig as his Champion. Stig should either declare a forfeit or name his champion publicly.

@ Bijo:

I can’t see how my statement that witness accounts establishes truth is invalidated either. Some one makes an event claim. The truth of this event is established through witnesses. To refute this event one needs to discredit the witnesses and not the event (in this I think we have a common understanding).
It could be that the witness is truthful, what do you do then? If you want to go further in this direction you need to convince the witness that he/she has perceived it wrongly.

But the fact remains; you can’t use the event of walking on water to discredit the bible. Surely there is a explanation of this event, but the witnesses perceived it as someone walking on water and testify of it.
This is again enhanced by the fact that second hand witnesses are so convinced that they too put it in writing as Luke did.

The honour of fighting his own battles are something that Stig understands as a former Jotun King. :beam: