Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[cobra]

;831070']
Science will never prove that there never is a god, nor will it prove that there is.

science will never prove that there never is a santa claus, nor will it prove that there is

science will never prove that there never is a tooth fairy, nor will it prove that there is

science will never prove that there never is a Leprechaun, nor will it prove that there is

science will never prove that there never is a Loch Ness Monster, nor will it prove that there is

............

[EnjoyTheSauce]

science will never prove that there never is a santa claus, nor will it prove that there is

science will never prove that there never is a tooth fairy, nor will it prove that there is

science will never prove that there never is a Leprechaun, nor will it prove that there is

science will never prove that there never is a Loch Ness Monster, nor will it prove that there is

............

nicely done cobra

heres one for the religious people out there:

I deny that the holy spirit exists (apparently the only unforgivable sin).

[frog.]

The rules and morales presented in the Bible are probably taken from what people knew to be common sense but the Bible isn't wrong for repeating them.

Yes but it is wrong for passing it off as God's word, the ten commandments,  given to man by God. The bible does contain lessons to be learnt but it is overshadowed by dogmata. Ironic isn't it, there is no one more enslaved then he who thinks he is free.

[Bell]

Then you stated your "Rule of Bell (TM)" (just quoting, not being pompous ) .

Yea I wasn't trying to say I am the first person to come up with that rule or anything.
I was just making the point that if I a mere moral can come up with that rule even tho I have barely touched a bible and didn't know the 10 commandments, it doesn't seem like the bible is teaching anything amazingly special.

As Nick said, people don't NEED the bible to have a set of morales.

The rules and morales presented in the Bible are probably taken from what people knew to be common sense but the Bible isn't wrong for repeating them.

No the Bible isn't wrong for restating common sense but it doesn't make it right either.
If I write down the "Rule of Bell" in a book write some other nutty rules then let it simmer in society for 2000 years does that make all my nutty rules right too?

[Scunner]

As Nick said, people don't NEED the bible to have a set of morales.

No the Bible isn't wrong for restating common sense but it doesn't make it right either.
If I write down the "Rule of Bell" in a book write some other nutty rules then let it simmer in society for 2000 years does that make all my nutty rules right too?

I've always thought "Do not murder" to be particularly nutty myself :knife:

Not saying the Bible is right, but is it wrong if someone reads the Bible and decides that they will live their life by the morales set out by it, even if some of these are found outside of religion or Christianity. They don't NEED the Bible to have those of morales set out by it or any other, by they can if they choose to and they can also choose to believe in the stories which teach these morales and that theres a big bearded face in the sky which check to see they are following them, if it helps them to live by them.

No one NEEDS to do anyhting, but the choice is theirs if they want to.

[nick247]

its the choice of the extra stuff thats the problem

and a sense of "we are right, everyone else is wrong"

sorry religous people but your faith based belief does not allow you to EVER point at any other system of faith (including the spaghetti monster) and say "you are wrong"

yet thats exactly the thing religion has been doing since its been around

[ThaFleastyler]

can you give us a example of one of your experiences so we can rationally explain it?

I will pass, given that my honest explanations of what I think happened to me have been laughed out of the thread in the past. Thanks for the offer though dude - if it was just you and I and a few others here, I probably would, but the trolls just ruin it for everyone.

[Bell]

Not saying the Bible is right, but is it wrong if someone reads the Bible and decides that they will live their life by the morales set out by it, even if some of these are found outside of religion or Christianity. They don't NEED the Bible to have those of morales set out by it or any other, by they can if they choose to and they can also choose to believe in the stories which teach these morales and that theres a big bearded face in the sky which check to see they are following them, if it helps them to live by them.

No one NEEDS to do anyhting, but the choice is theirs if they want to.

I think we both agree on the same thing, I am saying NOT following the bible or any other religion is not a bad thing, because you can have morales without it.

You are saying following the bible isn't a bad thing because it teaches morales.
I agree on that point.

I was replying to forsaken who was suggesting the Bible is awesome because it lists a set of morales, I disagree that it makes it particularly awesome because the basic set of morales are usually built into us (empathy) and is taught in many different texts/religions.
The 10 commandments don't make the bible overly special or different.
But saying its not awesome and saying it is bad are two different things.

To put it another way, If the bible never existed I don't believe peoples morale frameworks would be different.

[Scunner]

I think we both agree on the same thing, I am saying NOT following the bible or any other religion is not a bad thing, because you can have morales without it.

You are saying following the bible isn't a bad thing because it teaches morales.
I agree on that point.

I was replying to forsaken who was suggesting the Bible is awesome because it lists a set of morales, I disagree that it makes it particularly awesome because the basic set of morales are usually built into us (empathy) and is taught in many different texts/religions.
The 10 commandments don't make the bible overly special or different.
But saying its not awesome and saying it is bad are two different things.

To put it another way, If the bible never existed I don't believe peoples morale frameworks would be different.

Yeah, same point, different angles possibly. :sunnies:

The Bible isn't particularly better than any other thing that teaches morales, weither it is another religious text, general life experiences or whatever, but theres nothing wrong with forsaken coming out and saying it is awesome because it has taught me this set of morales. As long as they reckonise that other people will have simialar morales learnt from other sources which can be equally as awesome.

its the choice of the extra stuff thats the problem

and a sense of "we are right, everyone else is wrong"

sorry religous people but your faith based belief does not allow you to EVER point at any other system of faith (including the spaghetti monster) and say "you are wrong"

yet thats exactly the thing religion has been doing since its been around

But Atheists are allowed to sit outside of religion and say "You are all wrong "?

I think your generalising religous people too much. From my experiences, it is the religion that says "We are right, you are wrong" and the people really don't worry about it. They just follow the other stuff and pray to the Lord.

[Arnifix]

But Atheists are allowed to sit outside of religion and say "You are all wrong "?

Yes. What we need more of is science.

[Scunner]

Yes. What we need more of is science.

No, all you need is love. Love is all you need.

[nick247]

But Atheists are allowed to sit outside of religion and say "You are all wrong "?

to choose to be a complete atheist is also a logically untenable position as you can never be certain, you can lean towards an idea but theres no way you can say for sure

but at least athiests then dont add the extra stuff onto their arguments

eg "not only are we right but you MUST do this and live your life like this"

Organised religions CANNOT prove they are the ONE religion let alone prove that all the extra stuff associated with their religion is true

[Dr Woomanchu]

to choose to be a complete atheist is also a logically untenable position as you can never be certain, you can lean towards an idea but theres no way you can say for sure

You can also never say for sure that gravity will continue to function in the future as it has until now, but I have no plans to jump off a cliff expecting to float.

It is possible to be a complete atheist IMO for a simple reason. God is a human defined term. Basically once you prove a god of some sort exists they stop being a god by definition and become just some super advanced alien.

A God has to be supernatural. Once you measure and prove his/her/its/their existence, they become natural and no longer a god.

What you're really saying is that we will never know everything, so there will always be room for someone to claim the existence of something that is absurd based on what we do know, but unfalsifiable because of what we don't know.

[nick247]

yes but in terms of, if there is something greater (advanced alien super human thing) we cannot really say "no, no chance of this thing existing" becuase it is not logical to make that claim based on what is not known

god isnt well defined enough for us to say there is definatly no god

at the very least though we can say what is more likely, more probable, more reasonable and then base our BELIEFS and ACTIONS on that

[Dr Woomanchu]

yes but in terms of, if there is something greater (advanced alien super human thing) we cannot really say "no, no chance of this thing existing" becuase it is not logical to make that claim based on what is not known

God isn't well defined enough for us to say there is definatly no god

at the very least though we can say what is more likely, more probable, more reasonable and then base our BELIEFS and ACTIONS on that

You seem to be saying that we can't prove god(s) don't exist because they aren't well enough defined. Of course you can't disprove what hasn't been defined.

Atheism means without belief in god(s), not actively disbelieving them. I don't have time to actively disbelieve everything humans can imagine. As an atheist all I am saying is that I don't have any belief in anything someone might care to define as a god. In other words I don't believe that the concept of god has any objective existence. Disproving individual beliefs is irrelevant to the state of atheism. I'm not a-christian or a-muslim, I'm a-anysortoftheism.

I've read large chunks of the bible, just as I have read Homers works and other ancient myths and legends. They're fascinating stories that give great insight into how our thinking has evolved since the start of recorded history.

I treat all of them as stories. That many people believe some of the stories to be factual is irrelevant to me. I don't think that the things that happened in the Bible happened any more than in any mythological story.

You can no more prove or disprove peoples gods than you can prove or disprove pokémon.

[nick247]

i can visualise this best when i consider it in a business economics sense

A country may have two options, for example free trade versus protectionism.

two different groups advocating different specific actions based on their theories.

In order to choose you need to examine each theory, its logic, its past experiences and the reasoning behind why it will work for your situation

This is a contenscious issue because there is significant arguments made by both sides as to why their action should be accepted


When i consider religion i see a group in society advocating specific action yet the reasoning and justification is lacking.

Why should i NOT hold religious organisations up to the same critical standards i judge the rest of my environment on

Why should the decision of who to influence my moral compass (something i think is important) not be judged critically on logic and reason

I really want those questions answered

[Dr Woomanchu]

YOU should. but other peopel are free to choose not to.

The implication is that when one of them tells you that you should live as they do, then if they can't explain it to you in a way that satisfies you, then you should tell them to fuck off, and vice versa.

EDIT: Personal beliefs in god(s) should be irrelevant to social policy deliberations. We'll continue to have absurdities and poor law in this area until that happens

[Tiwaking!]

I must have been too busy to respond to this argument from page 125!

I had this argument put to me once, that God is powerful but directly affecting someones heart is more difficult than God intervening. I replied:
"Saint Paul also known as Saul"

This won the argument instantly

I fail to see how. Please explain?

Simple

He made a claim i.e God cannot directly influence human feelings and force them to serve/believe him. Claim was proven to be false i.e God did actually do such a thing. Worse still the fact that evidence(if you ever believe the bible to be 'evidence' for anything) came from the source of which he was using to back up his claim

According to the bible, as told in Acts ch 9, Saul had a very real, probably very frightening, experience with God, and his name was changed as a result, to wipe clean the reputation that went with the old name. Saint Paul isn't also known as Saul, he was known as Saul, which is an important distinction when telling the story.

Aside from that, the conversion of Saul is a powerful story, as it again shows that no-one can be too far away from God to engage in a relationship with him.

The comment: "Saint Paul, also known as Saul" stands

Abraham was not also known as 'Abram'. "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince", also known as Prince

The conversion of Saul shows that God can and will layeth the realy and physical smack down on you if you stray too far away. Funny how he was never around to save Nia Glassie

[$ent]

Don't really know too much about religion but from my point of view...

It makes some very good people

Makes some crazy suicide bombers and other people with some pretty fucked up ideas about how the world is supposed to work

Makes a certain few people rich by getting all their followers to give them a percentage of their pay packet.

In a nut shell.....Religion is a bad thing

[Retardobot]

I was enlightened in the weekend. I had been forever trying to figure out what it was that i believed in and where i stood.

Then i had Agnosticism explained to me and everything felt right. I don't necessarily believe in God but i believe that there is something...

Agnostic theism.

[Tiwaking!]

I was enlightened in the weekend. I had been forever trying to figure out what it was that i believed in and where i stood.

Then i had Agnosticism explained to me and everything felt right. I don't necessarily believe in God but i believe that there is something...

Agnostic theism.

No. You are a deist

Deism nurtures the inherent mysticism/wonder of life by pointing to the interconnectedness of things irregardless of dogmatic teachings.

I was thinking yesterday about how I could both simplify and clarify the Epicurius and 'The problem with evil' argument. If you are not familiar with it, it goes like this:

Epicurus taught this incredibly simple, yet ultimately infallible logic:
"If God is all powerful, why does God allow evil to exist? If God is willing, but unable to prevent evil, then God is not all powerful. If God is able, but unwilling then God is malevolent. If God is unwilling and unable then Why call him God?"

Although the Wiki goes on abit(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil) You could reduce this further with a simple logic flow diagram:

1. Does God exist? Yes/No/Maybe
If 1. NO then END
If 1. YES then Goto 2
If 1. Maybe then 2, 3, 4, 5 count as Maybe. END
2. Is God omnipotent? Yes/No
3. Is God omniscient? Yes/No
4. Is God omnipresent? Yes/No
5. Is God benevolent? Yes/No

Obviously Agnostics will say 'Maybe' to question 1, Atheists answer 'No' and Deists/Theists answer 'Yes'.

Now, the interesting thing is answering NO to any of the remaining questions(except for 5) technically qualifies you as a DEIST, since the 2-4 are the generally accepted theological powers demonstrated by what could be considered a deity.

[Retardobot]

No. You are a deist

How so?

I instantly answered "Maybe" to the first question of "Does God exist". And in your own quote it goes on to say "Obviously Agnostics will say 'Maybe' to question 1, Atheists answer 'No' and Deists/Theists answer 'Yes'."

Remember, i said that i don't necessarily believe that God exists. By your quote, to be a Deist i have to understand that God exists.

[ThaFleastyler]

I saw a fantastic t-shirt in Auckland this weekend that reminded me of this thread:

"I'm agnostic because I don't know and neither do you."

[Tiwaking!]

How so?

Remember, i said that i don't necessarily believe that God exists. By your quote, to be a Deist i have to understand that God exists.

My confusion stems from this

Agnostic theism.

This is an oxymoron.

The scale of religiousity(which IS a word) goes like this:

Strong Atheism - Weak Atheism - Agnosticism - Deism - Theism

Gnosis is a Greek term meaning 'knowing'. However, the Greeks were a very clever race of people and realized that simplying naming something 'Knowing' doesnt explain anything at all. Gnosis is an 'innate understanding' or 'intuitive feeling' like how some people are just 'good' at certain things, the only thing I can think of right now is 'fighting games'. Some people just have an innate knack for playing them.

Agnostics however are more or less against this idea of 'innate knowledge'. They believe that they'll never be true proof that Gnosis stems from a certain point/entirty or that the whole point of existing is to not-know but seek out anyhow.

The thing is Agnosticism is THE middle. Atheism disagrees with Theism, but agree almost entirely with Deism(with the exception of the whole God idea). Agnosticism is, as said by ThaFleastyler

I saw a fantastic t-shirt in Auckland this weekend that reminded me of this thread:

"I'm agnostic because I don't know and neither do you."

[Bounty Hunter]

I was at work 2 weeks ago, sitting with 4 other people doing our work, we got on to intelligent design vs evolution.

1 was a silly old christain bitch who had fucked up views even for a christian.

1 was samoan who was a pretty cool dude, he wasn't religious but he did believe intelligent design.

the other 2 jumped on the intelligent design bandwagon.

the samoan asked "so dave you think we came from monkeys? that sit in trees eating fruits and scratching their bums?"

dave said "no, we came from chimpanzees..."

"same thing" they said "a chimpanzee is a monkey"

"no it isn't" replied dave "a monkey and a chimpanzee are primates, but not both of them are monkeys"

*riotous laughter*

"...wait....shush....lemme get this straight" said dave "you guys think a monkey and a chimpanzee are the same thing? and you're arguing genetics with me?  did any of you do 5th form?"

*riotous silence*

"what's a whale?" asks dave

"it's a fish!" replied the samoan

"no it's a mammal, what's a-

"nah it's a fish, cause it swims in the sea" said the samoan

"oh right, some form of logic, about time, so you're saying that if it swims in the ocean it's a fish? therefore what if it walks on the land? it's a....?"

"mammal"

"so a lizard is a mammal? a bird is a mammal? a frong is a mammal? an ant is a mammal? a spider is a mammal?"

"NAH A SPIDER IS A BUG!"

"an insect?"

"yeah!"

"a spider is an arachnid, what's the difference between a lion and a lizard?"

"a lion is a mammal and a lizard is a reptile" he looked quite confused at how easy that answer was, but very proud that he'd got it right, I think he thought he'd won the argument here

"so what's the difference bewteen a whale and a fish?"

"a whale is a fish..."

"so what's the...fuck it, you all need an education or a bullet"

we didn't talk much after that.