Religious debate

[rotorgun]

I don't think it would produce any changes for anyone in an atheist position, since a "hardcore atheist" wouldn't suddenly be convinced of a supernatural being. On the otherhand, hardcore fundamentalism is obviously reasonless (for example, world is 6,000 years old, etc).

End of the day, ignostic/igtheism is obviously the best position.

Quoted from Wikipedia:


Here is the part explaining theological noncognitivism.


Edit: That is also my own stance on religion.

My Dear Beskar(What exactly does Beskar signify?). I am saddened that one of such enlightenment as you, should take such a posistion. Know Ye not that "Faith is the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1)? I mean no offense, but if say, Einstein would have taken such a view toward the atom, would he have created the theory of realativity? If did not Columbus believe that the Earth was round, would he have made his historic voyage in 1492? Please forgive my presumption upon our recent aquiantance, but it is inconcievable for me to believe that you really feel this way deep down.

I shall pray for you.

PS: I don't wish anyone to think that I think that my faith is infallible, for much is the influence of man upon religion. I just want the record to stand that I am a God fearing soul who hedges his bet upon the existence of a diety.

PPS: I apologize if this is premature, as the debate has not been agreed upon yet.

[Beskar]

Know Ye not that "Faith is the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1)? I mean no offense, but if say, Einstein would have taken such a view toward the atom, would he have created the theory of realativity? If did not Columbus believe that the Earth was round, would he have made his historic voyage in 1492?

Though, Einstein didn't wake up one morning, wrote in his book "E = MC2". He devised his theory on the connections and interactions based upon earlier work, he simply realised mass and energy are interconnected and devised a formula based upon this. This mathetical formula as been tested, through evidence obtained through fusion, fission and other various methods. Again with Columbus, he believed there was another route to India, other than going around Africa, and thus set sail and rediscovered American continent (Records show that the early French tribes, Mongols, Vikings, and even Eygptians have once all visited).

However, what you also fail to consider is the other concepts and ideas which were disproven. Why does your faith compare with Einstein and Columbus and not those of lets say, the Catholic Church who were strong advocates of the "Flat Earth" concept and the world being the centre of the universe.

These are simply ideas. If you want to translate this across, you would be saying that the concept of a supernatural being, in whatever form, is simply an idea some one came up with, with no current basis on reality.

So while you convey an idea, it is simply that. Just because my Nan believes in fairies living under fairy bridge, doesn't actually mean fairies are living there. As for religion, I am presuming Christian, what makes your concept the correct one, and not that of the Hindu God Shiva who is from a far older religious order. Also in the Christian faith, while many of the routes are present in Judea-ism, is also present in Pagan rituals and belief, therefore not even correctly attributed to this supernatural being which you might believe in.

You could also remove yourself from any organised religion, but then you end up in wish-washy terrority, such as pantheism. I remember some one who once argued and believed that energy was "god." This argument revolves around the fact, such as Einstein, that energy is interchangable with matter and is the fundamental of the universe. They made it sound somewhat like the Force in Starwars. Ultimately, it boiled down to "You are just calling an object another name? Like the ancient Eygptians deitifying the Nile? for almost the same reasons as you speak of with energy."

As you are unfamilar with me, I will provide some further insight. I was pretty much indoctrinated as a child as a methodist Christian. I was top in bible class, was the star-pupil of the church and was once even commented on by a international church leader (that church branches equalivant to a pope, as it were) as being a future preacher. So I am not from an uninformed view of religion, I had real personal experience. I remember being told feelings such as guilt was "God telling you to do the right thing", but it was simply attributing real human feelings to something which simply isn't there. I simply grew up and realised things aren't actually like that. I remember struggling, trying to find some validation, some shred of existence, which I found none. The only things which are real are the people around you, the love and fellowship. Churches are communities, once you are in these communities, it is very hard to leave. Many simply put aside their views and feelings of "god" and simply stay there for the ritual of it all, as Orwell famously said "Ignorance is bliss". As Marx comments "Religion is the Opium of the People", he is correct, but where he fails in that sentence is fully explaining why that is. Such as Religion is the Opium of the People, so are other ideologies. Animal Rights activists have a religious quality around them, and their meetings, and they want to simply lessen animal suffering. What is cynically worse, being implied by the comment is references to the past and present where Religion is very often used to exploit the masses, as a means of control. "You better do this and this, or the bogeyman gets you!", "if you work really really hard, the bogeyman will give you 70 virgins" and such-like.

[Kadagar_AV]

Beskar, you want a religious debate, FINE! :)

However, try to stay at least vaguely on topic. Or make a new thread. Or do it in PMs. Plenty of options feel free to pick one. I would however frown upon further trying to derail this thread. Specially as I already asked you once.

Dont get me wrong, I more than welcome a religious debate. As my OP shows. However, this is not the place for it, get my point?

[rotorgun]

Though, Einstein didn't wake up one morning, wrote in his book "E = MC2". He devised his theory on the connections and interactions based upon earlier work, he simply realised mass and energy are interconnected and devised a formula based upon this. This mathetical formula as been tested, through evidence obtained through fusion, fission and other various methods.

Again with Columbus, he believed there was another route to India, other than going around Africa, and thus set sail and rediscovered American continent (Records show that the early French tribes, Mongols, Vikings, and even Eygptians have once all visited).

These are simply ideas. If you want to translate this across, you would be saying that the concept of a supernatural being, in whatever form, is simply a construct. While you quoted ideas which are founded, how about all those ideas which failed? Why is the priority in your example placed on the successful idea "The world is not round" compared to the position of the catholic church "The world is flat".

So while you convey an idea, it is simply that. Just because my Nan believes in fairies living under fairy bridge, doesn't actually mean fairies are living there. As for religion, I am presuming Christian, what makes your concept the correct one, and not that of the Hindu God Shiva who is from a far older religious order.

Also in the Christian faith, many of the routes while some in Judea-ism, is also present in Pagan rituals and belief, therefore not even correctly attributed to this supernatural being.

You could also remove yourself from any organised religion, but then you end up in wish-washy terrority, such as pantheism. I remember some one who once argued and believed that energy was "god." This argument revolves around the fact, such as Einstein, that energy is interchangable with matter and is the fundamental of the universe. They made it sound somewhat like the Force in Starwars. Ultimately, it boiled down to "You are just calling an object another name? Like the ancient Eygptians deitifying the Nile? for almost the same reasons as you speak of with energy."

A very good answer indeed! As for my faith, I am indeed a Christian, but not one of those militant type who discounts the beliefs of others; like many Hindus, I respect all religions, as long as they do not espouse violence. I shall also admit that my beliefs could be entirely wrong, for it would be the hieght of arrogance to make such a claim. I am just compelled to remind others, much as Saint Paul reminded the Greeks, that there is evidence of the "unseen God." I make no claim that the "Christian" idea of God is the only correct one, but feel strongly that one day we shall see him revealed. It is my belief that such an intelligence has already revealed himself in the very beauty of creation, and in the very laws of the universe itself.

Don't you agree that it is too highly ordered as to be a mere accident of design?

Thank You for your very thought provoking critisizm, all the same. I am honored.

[Kadagar_AV]

Rotor, I could most def argue against that.

But again, not the time, not the place.



PLEASE DO NOT GET ME WRONG: Excellent points, well worth debating.

I can promise you that I will meet your points Rotorgun :)

But ONCE AGAIN, save it for the debate.

In a way, it is part my fault. Anything with religion in it is bound to draw some fire.

May I ask some mod to clean up a bit? :)

[rotorgun]

My most humble apologies Dear friend. I shall indeed await the proper time and place. A fascinating subject!

Thanks.

[Reenk Roink]

If for nothing else, next time a hardcore atheist or creationist (or whatever) comes we could point them there, just so we dont have to repeat ourselves ad infinitum.

Well it's already been done on this very forum, a few times before. Notably, this thread. It's fairly long, and it covers a ton of ground, but a lot of what I think you're looking for is there. You get the atheist/agnostic/skeptic position (wikipedia articles galore in the first post), and you also get an attack on atheism and humanism, and a proposed argument for god (standard cosmological argument) which is then defended as sound and attacked in various ways to reject the conclusion. You also get a discussion going on the very notion of rationality a bit and a side track on the logical nature and/or rationality of our common sense beliefs and also of science and inductive knowledge.

I tend to agree with the sentiments that you'd be better off creating a more informal topic (best if it's related to some current event issue) and then let the viewpoints spring. Yes it won't be as organized, and the discussion will meander in different places, but if you really want a debate on a certain argument, it's probably been covered. Also, there are much better places to look, like in books or scholarly articles on philosophy of religion and theology.

[Kadagar_AV]

Reenk Roink, thread is 806 posts long, and first post I read was about contemporary art.

I think we can do a better job than that. Thanks for the link though, might be well worth a read. I still claim that that thread is kind of different from what I had in mind though.

[Beskar]

Last post because Kadagar-AV is unhappy with us doing it in this thread.

A very good answer indeed! As for my faith, I am indeed a Christian, but not one of those militant type who discounts the beliefs of others; like many Hindus, I respect all religions, as long as they do not espouse violence. I shall also admit that my beliefs could be entirely wrong, for it would be the hieght of arrogance to make such a claim. I am just compelled to remind others, much as Saint Paul reminded the Greeks, that there is evidence of the "unseen God." I make no claim that the "Christian" idea of God is the only correct one, but feel strongly that one day we shall see him revealed. It is my belief that such an intelligence has already revealed himself in the very beauty of creation, and in the very laws of the universe itself.

Don't you agree that it is too highly ordered as to be a mere accident of design?

Thank You for your very thought provoking critisizm, all the same. I am honored.

I actually ended up editing and expanding, I apologise. It is a habit of mine. I very often write something, then comes to me "I should have said this or that", "perhaps worded that better."

If you permit me to go slightly off-topic, your comment "that there is evidence of the "unseen God." reminded me of another post I made elsewhere, this is over a year old, so there will be some slight differences between now and then:

The most common and basic definition of a God is something that operates outside the natural order. Simply, a God cannot be naturalised regardless of the resources and capabilities that could ever be done. In short, God is the supernatural that can never be proven or shown to exist, it is unfalsible, which means it doesn’t exist. [You cannot prove that something doesn't exist, only that something does exist.]

This theoretically means that anything and everything that does exist can be shown or proven to exist. As God by its very nature of its definition operates only supernaturally, it can never be brought into existence.

This is the path that simply claims that anything that is there can be shown or proven to be there regardless of our own current limitations proposing we can some-day show it. This doesn’t claim everything that is currently classified as supernatural is actually supernatural; it claims that anything supernatural which can never be natural does not exist. As a God operates in the supernatural, therefore not natural, anything which is natural cannot be a God.

This theory does not deny the possibility of Massively Powerful Beings (MPB). A MPB is simply a being or even a technological object of immense power which can currently shock and awe us with our current levels of understanding. In short, it would be going back to 1000 BC with a Helicopter; it would shock and awe the people of that time period through their lack of understanding. In this, it could allow for the possibility of (in pure example) an Artificial Intelligence UFO at the Centre of the Universe controlling everything at a quantum level. The theory would only state that such an MPB is part of the natural world, not the supernatural; therefore, an MPB is not a God (by definition of a supernatural being). For instance, an argument could be that an MPB created the Big Bang, because of its existence and part of the natural world and from greater understanding; this MPB is not supernatural and therefore cannot be a God.

This theory also disagrees with any labelling of anything as a God. While other theist arguments might be the personification of let’s say energy being God. They say that energy creates matter, and is the fundamental source of everything in the Universe, however, as energy is not supernatural, it is not a God by the definition.

This is mainly addressing the concept of god as something classified as something supernatural. However, it highlights the possibility of things such as MPB (Massively Powerful Beings) which could have hypothetically created planet earth. But these could simply be aliens, a highly advanced computer, or things that would adequately fit other definitions, other than "god".

You also speak of things being very ordered and not opened to random chance. What is amazing if when you actually begin the comprehend how large the Universe is, you start to change opinions that perhaps it actually could have been random.
https://img189.imageshack.us/img189/...4813590407.jpg

The Universe is a wonderful, limitless, place of amazement, why stop ourselves short? Like Columbus who thought there might have been another way to India, and ended up discovering America instead, perhaps there is a great surprised around the next corner, why sell ourselves short, untill we find it?